source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Difference between "however" and "whereas"? What is the difference between however and whereas ? Cooking is hard, whereas eating is easy. Can I use however in that sentence (instead of whereas ) or not? If not, why? The meaning of the two words seems very much the same: they both show a contrast between two things. I am confused about how and when to use them in sentences. <Q> However you look at this question it's not easy to answer <S> Whereas ignoring it is the easy option <S> However, neither will keep me awake at night <S> I'd always use " <S> whereas" as the second part of a comparison. <S> "however" could also be used in this way. <S> Often "however" would have a comma after it when used as the second part of a comparison. <S> I take "however" as something like "how ever you take the meaning of this" . <S> OTOH "whereas" is something like "in contrast to the previous opinion" <A> Cooking is hard, whereas eating is easy. <S> Whereas is a conjunction used to compare the difference between two things. <S> It is most commonly used to mean " <S> although" or "while in contrast" and could introduce a dependent clause. <S> You wouldn't use it with a dependent clause in this sense. <S> I would use however instead of whereas in your example sentence. <S> Cooking is hard; However, eating is easy. <S> The punctuation depends on which style guide you're using. <S> Many recommend using the semicolon, but it isn't incorrect to use a period or comma. <S> You would not use a comma after a conjunction, but you should use it after a conjunctive adverb. <S> You would not use whereas in this sentence, because you aren't showing a direct difference between two facts. <S> We thought she was going to come to the party, however, she didn't show up. <S> If you wanted to use whereas in a similar sentence, you would need to compare what we thought with what someone else thought. <S> We thought she was going to come to the party, whereas they were certain she wouldn't. <A> "Whereas" is used in the prefaces to laws. <S> In this context, "whereas" does not mean "contrary to what was said previously".
| In the closest definition to whereas, however is a conjunctive adverb used to contrast two independent clauses.
|
What do the words "that is" mean? There's a guy like me in every state and federal prison in America, I guess - I'm the guy who can get it for you. Tailor-made cigarettes, a bag of reefer, if you're partial to that, a bottle of brandy to celebrate your son or daughter's high school graduation, or almost anything else ... within reason, that is . What do the last words "that is" mean? <Q> From Cambridge Dictionaries Online's entry on " that is " : said when you want to give further details or be more exact about something: I'll meet you in the city, that is, I will if the trains are running. <S> (See similar definitions at the Free Dictionary and Wikitionary .) <S> Here, the speaker clarifies the phrase "almost anything else". <S> The meaning is "I can get almost anything. <S> To clarify, I can get almost anything within reason ." <A> The phrase "within reason" is understood to mean that there are reasonable limits on what has come before - he cannot smuggle a car into prison for you, because it is not reasonable. <S> Adding "that is" puts an emphasis on modifying what has come before it. <S> For instance: I can help you with your homework. <S> That is, I will check your draft for errors, I will not write it for you. <S> It is often used for humor, especially in the dialect of the American South. <S> Consider the following song lyric about a man who discovered oil while hunting: <S> Then one day, Jed was shootin' at some food, When up from the ground came a-bubblin' crude. <S> Oil, that is . <S> Black gold. <S> Texas Tea. <S> The food/crude lines are part of the rhyming scheme, but the singer pauses to explain himself in an amusing way. <A> 'that is' is refering to a specific reason that exists. <A> The phrase "that is" marks something as a clarification, qualification, or further explanation. <S> In your example, the speaker is adding the clarification or qualification that he can obtain 'anything within reason', rather than 'anything'.
| Within reason <--- is making the claim that it must be reasonable that is <---- is signifying that 'within reason' must exist. It is used to change the intent of what came before it, or to add clarification, especially after a long pause or where there is room for misinterpretation.
|
Choosing a name for one of a website's sub-menus I need to enter information of the company profile for three partner companies in a website which belongs to all of these three companies at the same time. What should I name the menu title?Does the name below sound grammatically correct to you: Company profile for / of : Alpha Company Bravo Company Charlie Company I doubt which preposition from among the bold ones above is used here normally?I'm wide open to receive your suggestions. <Q> While the titles for the elements in the software is chosen, the prepositions are usually omitted. <A> While I think you could safely use either, "for" strikes me as the better answer here: <S> Company profile for Google. <S> In this use, "for" is being used to indicate purpose or essentially as a synonym for "representing" <S> (See point 7 of Merriam's definition ). <S> On the other hand, though "of" can also be used in the same way, to me it feels like it's suggesting more of an immediate relationship, and doesn't flow as softly as "for" in this case. <A> To me, it depends on the context. <S> I'm leaning towards using of here in a professional environment, and in a situation where the website is representing the company. <S> In my honest opinion, it also flows a little better <S> On the other hand, for sounds as if it should be used if the menu is, for instance, in a personal portfolio of yours. <S> For gives the impression of a personal relationship between yu and the company, or as though the profile was a gift to them. <S> Regardless of the implications, both are grammatically correct in the given use case!
| Company profile is an OK title for your menu.
|
Can't we say "It is likely to rain " Can't we say " Look at those dark clouds.It is likely/bound/due to rain " ? <Q> Bound expresses a greater degree of certainty than likely . <S> We are more likely to use due if we are thinking of a previous weather report than if we are looking at clouds. <S> The word suggest that something has been scheduled. <A> Let us look at all those options mentioned in your question. <S> And we will see what comes first in my mind. <S> Look at those dark clouds. <S> It is likely to rain = <S> It ought to rain today. <S> It might be raining after some time. <S> Look at those dark clouds. <S> It is bound to rain <S> - It is quite certain that it'll rain (It is close to 'likely' but a bit more in degree of certainty). <S> OALD's example: <S> It's bound to be sunny again tomorrow. <S> Look at those dark clouds. <S> It is due to rain = <S> The existence of those dark clouds is because of rain! <S> So, in the context defined, likely or bound work. <A> Maulik and tunny are correct about their interpretations of "It is likely to rain", "It is bound to rain", and "It is due to rain." <S> Another option is "We're due for rain." <S> In this usage, rain is assumed to come more-or-less on a schedule. <S> Either it is now a time at which "we" expect rain, or the rain is "overdue". <S> Furthermore, "we" are under the influence of a " gambler's fallacy " -- "we" assume that if the rain is "overdue", then rain is especially likely to happen soon. <S> There are several common situations where an American might say "We're due for rain." <S> There has been a drought. <S> For example, "we" are in what is historically a wet season, but "we" have gone an unusual length of time without rain. <S> The dry season historically ends soon, and "we" are expecting the wet season to start soon. <S> A weather forecast (or an almanac) predicts rain soon (or in the recent past). <S> Some places (during certain seasons) have rain at predictable times of day. <S> For example, many places have a brief thunderstorm in the middle of most summer afternoons. <S> Other places often have misty mornings.
| We can indeed say "It's likely/bound to rain".
|
Is it an obligatory or a obligatory I was wondering if "An" should be used with obligatory or "A". I understand that since obligatory begins with a vowel I should use "An" but I see people are using "A" more frequently than "An" To me "A obligatory like" sounds right, as in "a Facebook like". Also .. Is "and a obligatory comment" correct or is it "and an obligatory comment" ? <Q> To me only "an obligatory" sounds right. " <S> a obligatory" is not only more difficult to pronounce but also sounds pretty odd (to me at least). <S> Google ngram seems to agree with me: <A> I think an important point is that you "see" this but it "sounds ... unnatural". <S> The pronoun was invented for pronunciation. <S> It prevents the speaker from having to separate the vowels. <S> Since it is not necessary to speak while typing, I suggest that "a obligatory" is an Internet artifact. <A> The indefinite article "a" changes to "an" when used before a word that begins with a, e, i, o, or short u, ignoring any silent consonants. <S> Words like this are very rare, nonetheless, listen to this example . <S> (an ytterbium element) Use "a" for w and phrases beginning with one/once an honest mistake a universal trait <S> an ugly duckling <S> a euphoric feeling a one-time pad <S> an only child <S> a yes-man an iatrophoic person an idiot a wish upon a star <S> So, an obligatory ... etc.
| Use "a" for long u, whether it's spelled "eu" or just with a "u." Only use "an" for words that begin with "y" if it's with an initial "y" that sounds like a short i.
|
Question about hair types Could somebody tell me please that what is the word that you use for a person who lost most of his hair?(he is not bald yet) <Q> <A> They are balding . <S> Here is the link to balding in Cambridge Dictionaries online . <A> Balding, as the others say. <S> Yet there is the subtle shading of 'receding' ie, the hair is disappearing from the front, but there's some still at the back. <S> Which would lead to variations on how people try to hide that fact... <S> Comb-over - taking long hair from one side & combing it over the 'shiny bits', which nearly works unless it's windy <S> [Google 'Bobby Charlton'] <S> Known, as I understand it, in Japanese as a ' bar-code ', from the similarity to the identifying marks on the side of any grocery product you scan through a till in the supermarket. <S> The alternative 'cure' - whilst not really fixing it - is to shave it all off.... <S> Known as a ' Jean-Luc Picard ' or just ' Picard ', after the Captain of the USS Enterprise, Star Trek, the next generation.
| That person is said to be balding or going bald .
|
British Person or English Person? Are there grammatical etiquette guidelines as to whether to refer to a person from Great Britain as a British person or an English person? Is referring to a person as a Brit insulting, even if no insult was intended? <Q> Grammatically, it's not incorrect if we say a British person or an English person, but such phrases seem a bit awkward. <S> I think it's common and natural if we just say "He is British" if he is from Britain. <S> However, we can say "the British" to mean people from Britain. <A> The Brits call themselves Brits. <S> It's just an abbreviation, not a derogatory term. <S> You could avoid it if being formal, but in everyday conversation it's fine. <S> You could further sub-divide into English, Scottish [or Scots <S> ... never scotch, that's a drink not a person] & Welsh, but you'd need to be certain which they actually were. <S> It's easier not to guess & just refer to them as British. <A> Scots and the Welsh and the Northern Irish are not English, but they are British. <S> Ironically, the Cornish are English but Cornish is not English.:-)
| If a person is from England, the usual word is Englishman.
|
"A book of mine" vs "A book of my own" I found this question while doing an exercise: ---Find the mistake: -"This is abook of mine." I think the answer is: -"This is a book of mine.", Isn't it? And is it right to say: -"This is a book of my own." Does this make difference? <Q> You're correct. <S> " <S> You might probably have heard of this style of speaking like "a friend of mine", and no, it doesn't mean "a friend of a friend" . <S> " <S> A book of my own" is grammatically correct <A> : "This is a book of my own." Doesn't sound very natural, but anyway it means that it belongs only to you,to nobody else. <S> It would be more natural to say; "I have a book of my own. <S> " <S> As for the first sentence, you're right. <S> "This is a book of mine. <S> "In <S> the first sentence you're stressing the fact that you have something that belongs only to you, whereas in he second you're just stating that the book is yours. <A> This is a book of mine. <S> This is a book of my own. <S> (Pls refer to Oxford D. for "of my own") <S> Semantically, both the sentences have the same meaning, with the only difference the former means that this is a book that belongs to me whereas the latter puts emphasis that this is a book that belongs to me. <S> Another example: He is a child of mine/ <S> He is a child of my own. <S> It's more usual to say that "This book is mine <S> / <S> This is my own book".
| A book of mine" is valid, it means "my book". It's a simple matter of typo.
|
"I can do it too" Can you say I can do it too meaning that I can also do what someone else just did? I had an argument with my mate who is a native speaker (or that's what she claims). I was pretty sure you can say it like that but she said you can't. <Q> There is nothing grammatically wrong with "I can do it too. <S> " <S> Without a context, of course, one can't know what the "it" refers to, but as long as the listener knows the reference there is no problem. <S> "I know you can change the bicycle tire, but can you change the chain?""Yes, I can do that too." <S> Suppose that your friend David is juggling six balls and someone says "David is juggling 6 balls. <S> "Since <S> the context is clear it would be correct to say, "I can do it too. <S> "Then <S> you do it and decide to add yet another ball as you say <S> "I can do this too." <A> I can do it too. <S> is understandable and is used to signify that the speaker can also perform an action . <S> It gets used by younger children and people making a point that something is no big deal . <S> Often instead, one might say I can do that too. <S> I can do that also . <S> since whatever is being discussed is usually away from the speaker. <A> The problem is the pronoun "it." <S> "It" is used only in cases where there is a clear grammatical antecedent. <S> For example: You silently watch someone juggle three chainsaws. <S> You would say: I can do that, too. <S> You could not use "it" in this sentence, because there is no grammatical antecedent. <S> Think of it this way: the word "that" is referring the listener out into the real world; <S> the word "it" is only referring to something earlier in the sentence. <S> In grammatical terms, "that" is a demonstrative pronoun, and "it" is a personal pronoun. <S> Even if you were responding to another person's sentence, it would be more idiomatic to say "that" instead of "it." <S> For example: I can juggle chainsaws, you know. <S> Yeah, I can do that too. <S> The only time you would be likely to use "it" in this context is where it is acting as a replacement for a noun or noun phrase: Juggling chainsaws is hard, but I can do it. <S> Is juggling chainsaws hard? <S> Yes, but I can do it. <S> Is it hard to juggle chainsaws? <S> Yes, but I'll bet I could do it if I tried. <S> If you use the sentence as you suggested: I can do it. <S> without any obvious context, people will either be confused, or they will think you mean one of two things: 1) <S> You can achieve your goals; or 2) You can have sex. <S> These are the two default definitions of "it" where it is used without an antecedent.
| It is also correct to say "I can do that too" and "I can do this too." It depends on the context, but in most cases, no, that sentence is not going to be idiomatic.
|
Is republican state's title part of the name? Is it right if I say:Example: China Full Name: People's Republic of China Name: China Example: United States Full Name: United States of America Name: United States If wrong, then when to include the republican state's title? <Q> Countries generally have official long and short versions of their name. <S> This has nothing to do with whether or not they are a republic: for example, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. <S> Normally, people use the short name but you can always use the long name if it makes things clearer. <S> In fact, sometimes, people use unofficial long names for countries for clarity. <S> For example, Ireland is both an island and a country whose territory is about 85% of the island. <S> Officially, the country is just called "Ireland", with no long form but people use the unofficial name "Republic of Ireland" to disambiguate between the country and the Island of Ireland. <A> In most cases, the short name of a country suffices. <S> The long name is usually unnecessarily formal. <S> However, you should use the official name in some diplomatically sensitive situations. <S> Examples include: the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , to avoid offending Greece over the use of the name Macedonia Republic of China and the People's Republic of China due to a legitimacy dispute <S> Côte d'Ivoire instead of Ivory Cost , by request of the Ivorian government <A> You include the full name of a state when you don't want ambiguity about what nation you are meaning to identify. <S> In English, "China" might refer to either the Republic of China [Taiwan] or the People's Republic of China. <S> America might refer to the United States of America, or one of the continents in the Western Hemisphere. <S> The "United States" could refer to the "United States of Mexico", the formal name of the country, or the "United States of America".
| In most cases, especially informally, it is probably going to be acceptable to use merely "China", or "United States", or for the latter, even "USA".
|
How to compare two percentage number Let's say A=10%, B=15%. How can I express how much higher B is than A.I can not say "B is 5% higher than A", because that means B=(1+5%)*A. <Q> You would say B is 5 percentage points higher than A. <S> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_point <A> This depends on a number of factors. <S> There are essentially three options I can think of that should cover most situations. <S> A is 10%, and B is 15% <S> This is as unambiguous as you can get. <S> B is 5% more than A B <S> is 50% more than A <S> These work if A is known as a percentage, but are ambigious - the hearer has to guess at the meaning, Perhaps the context will be useful, but otherwise, you can't tell whether B is 15%, 10.5%, or 60%. <S> In brief, in English, I don't think there's an idiomatic way to unambiguously phrase the idea you want without stating both values. <A>
| You could say B is 50% more than AORYou could say "B is 5% more" (without making a reference to A)
|
What is bend migration? My friend is reading a text on hydrology for its school subject methodology, but we cannot understand what bend migration and bends as dynamic mean in this context? Focus on bank erosion has in turn demanded greater emphasis on bends as dynamic, migrating forms, and a wide range of modes of bend migration has been identified. Actually, I do not understand this sentence. <Q> There is no mention of a concept of bends as dynamic ; you're parsing the sentence in too short parts: Bends have to be seen as [ dynamic, migrating forms ]. <S> A bend is a curve in the river. <S> Those bends are not static: they move ! <S> So they are dynamic, and they move from one place to another: they migrate . <A> Here, bend is a noun, meaning : something that is bent: as a curved part of a path (as of a stream or road) <S> The passage here probably talks about bends in a river or stream . <S> (The phrase "bank erosion" probably refers to the banks of a river .) <S> When we treat bend as a noun, we see the meaning: bends as dynamic, migrating forms = <S> > <S> bends as forms that are dynamic and migrating and bend migration = <S> > <S> migration of a river bend (i.e. over a period of time) <S> The sentence talks about how scientists and ecologists should think about the turns in rivers. <S> (e.g., River bends are not still; they move ("migrate") over time.) <A> ... <S> emphasis on bends as dynamic, migrating forms River bends (bent places in rivers) are both dynamic and migratory. <S> For hydraulic engineers, in this context, dynamic means that change is taking place. <S> Migratory describes the type of change - movement. <S> Here is an example of one mode of bend migration (my words): <S> When the river forms a bend, there will be different velocities on the inside and outside of the turn, as the water is accelerated around the corner. <S> The faster moving water at the outside will cause increased erosion, while the slower water on the inside will deposit material. <S> Over time, this causes the thalweg (deepest part of the river) to move to the outside. <A> Over time the bends of rivers change. <S> Erosion and sediment close off some watercourses and open up others. <S> This leaves behind 'oxbow lakes'. <S> Here's a picture from the Yamal Peninsula, Russia (image from Wikimedia): <S> You can see the large sandy riverbanks in the photo, and at the very right what looks to be some changes in the river banks (due to the colour differences and sharp angle of the river.) <S> I would guess that the text you are reading is saying that rather than considering erosion to ultimately do little to change the shape or position of a river bend, we should understand that sometimes there can be big changes, and that other factors can be at play sometimes too.
| Bend migration is a noun related to the observation that river bends are not fixed in location over time - the movement of bent places in rivers .
|
Whats the meaning of go a long way I was reading an article about steps we can do to make out computers fast. If you want to improve the speed of your computer, that’s great. However, above all, do no harm and beyond the scope of this Windows forum, ask for help from those you know if you get in over your head. Remember: you have time. You can stop most processes I discuss without causing harm. Caution and common sense go a long way when working with computers; problems are often much easier to fix than they appear. <Q> This is an idiomatic usage which might be more commonly expressed as to go a long way toward sth . <S> The toward sth prepositional phrase is omitted here, but toward some kind of success is implied. <S> The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms definition states Have considerable effect or influence on. <S> For example, This argument goes a long way toward proving the scientists are wrong. <S> ODO offers its definition under <S> go : <S> 1.8 <S> Used to indicate how many people a supply of food, money, or another resource is sufficient for or how much can be achieved using it: the sale will go a long way toward easing the huge debt burden <S> a little luck can go a long way <S> A little kindness goes a long way <S> means that showing a small amount of kindness repays itself manifold in the kindness received. <S> Or, a cookbook might caution that a little ghost pepper goes a long way , meaning that a small amount of ghost pepper contributes greatly to the spiciness— in other words, don't use too much! <S> To be more explicit, the sentence could be written as Caution and common sense contribute greatly towards success when working with computers; problems are often much easier to fix than they appear. <S> Caution and common sense will be very useful when working with computers; problems are often much easier to fix than they appear. <S> It can also be expressed using other words for distance, as in go far , to go miles towards sth : <S> Hoffmans' deep and lasting sympathy for his characters goes far toward explaining his particular genius as an actor. <S> [ American Film Magazine ] Something as simple as [good packaging] goes miles towards making it more enjoyable to bring a lunch. <S> [ Lifehacker Australa ] <S> For an older related thread at EL&U, see “Go a long way to” + gerund vs infinitive . <A> Is an equivalent of to be very successful : You'll be successful if you're cautious and you have common sense while working with computers; problems are often much easier to fix than they appear. <A> The idiom "go a long way" is especially used for money or food to mean to last for a long time such as we have to be thrifty if we want to make our money go a long way. <S> However, if this idiom is used with the preposition "towards" i.e. "go a long way towards", it means to be very helpful in achieving something. <S> For example, your suggestion will go a long way towards solving this problem.
| A popular formulation is to say a little [of something] goes a long way , meaning a small amount of something has a greater effect than one might expect.
|
Should I use "figure" or "figure out" in the following sentence? At that instant the bell rang and my friends darted to class, leaving me there, thinking what to do next. It didn’t take me long to figure: if I wanted my marble back I had to venture into the forest. I had to be careful, though. Should it be figure or figure out ? If so, why? <Q> I see subtle difference there. <S> On the other hand figure (without adverbial particle 'out') is seen to mean to understand/conceive/judge . <S> I searched some examples and also a dictionary. <S> WorldWebOnline Dictionary has a word to say about it: figure (v) in sense #1, #3 or #5 <S> The speaker did not take long to understand/judge the situation when left alone. <S> On the other hand, figure out (v) <S> Find the solution to (a problem or question) or understand the meaning of - "did you figure out the problem?" <A> I would keep figure . <S> I heard it before, hence it doesn't sound wrong to me, but it's colloquial. <S> If you figured it out , I'd wonder, "out of what? <S> What is it?" <S> Besides: <S> "I didn't take (a) long (time) to" Why the indirection? <S> What is It ? <S> The figuring, certainly, <S> but I don't think you should use a personal pronoun to denote an infinitive verb. <S> Not saying the passive was entirely wrong, but I'm unsure how to transform it. <S> Something along the way of "It didn't take a lot of my time" "my friends darted to class, leaving me there, thinking what to do next." <S> That sentence is much more troublesome for me. <S> What's with all the commas? <S> It potentially means the friends where leaving while thinking. <S> I am not sure, though. <S> For basic English, a teacher would probably emphasize to use a more formal style, e.g. understand or hypothesize instead of figure . <S> Do you just say figure because you picked it up as a synonym for another word? <S> Going out on a limp <S> i'd guess, it's somehow connected to idea , which in old greek might mean form , while figure also means form, so you are basically saying you idead? <S> Whereas the meaning of figure out is closer to envision , i guess, like produce a figure out of material . <S> Or maybe figure is related to numerals, so to speak as you calculated your chances, you counted your options. <S> Anyway, the link in the other answer gives imagine , which is more or less suitable. <A> In your example: It didn’t take me long to figure : <S> As I read this, it is basically is the same as: It didn’t take me long to <S> learn/understand : Checking the definition of figure out <S> , this is basically the meaning you want. <S> However an object (someone or something in the definitions), so you should write: It didn’t take me long to figure it/that out : figure by itself does not work. <S> If you check that definition, figure , you won't find the a similar definition (possibly "15. <S> to represent mentally; imagine" ) but that is not the way I read your example.
| Figure out something denotes solving something like puzzling out .
|
"learn to do " vs. "learn doing "? For example： Ever since he was five, he learned to ride horses. Does "learned riding" also work here? Which is more proper or what is the difference between "learn to do <something>" and "learn doing <something>"? <Q> Ever since he was five, he learned to ride horses. <S> Ever since he was five, he learned riding horses. <S> I think the correct sentence is as follows: <S> "Ever since he was five, he has learned to ride horses. <S> Usually, we use to-infinitive after the verb "learn", not -ing form of the verb. <S> Second, we can rephrase this sentence in a simple form as follows: <S> "He was (only) five when he learned to ride horses". <S> Third, I think we can say "Ever since he was five, he has learned horse riding; here horse riding is a noun. <A> "Learned riding" is grammatical but feels a little clunky. <S> I suspect it's because we expect to see "learned [noun]" or "learned [to verb]" <S> and, while "riding" can certainly be used as a noun, it's most commonly a verb when it's used on its own <S> : you'd normally specify what you were riding if you were using it as a noun (e.g., "horse riding", "bike riding", etc.). <S> In contrast "He learned programming" does sound natural because "programming" is commonly used on its own as a noun. <S> So I would say that "Ever since he was five, he learned riding" is OK but "Ever since he was five, he learned to ride" or "... <S> he learned horse/bike/camel riding" would be better. <S> Even better still is "... <S> he has learned", since the phrase "Ever since" implies an action that began in the past but is continuing into the present. <A> It comes under something called 'verb pattern' . <S> Some verbs take -ing and some take to+infinitive after them. <S> Generally, verbs like want, learn, offer takes to+infinitive form. <S> So, the sentence in concern is correct. <S> Ever since he was five, he learned to ride horses. <S> Good read on this <S> is Learn English on British Council website.
| First off, both sentences seem incorrect grammatically because it doesn't seem OK to use both clauses in the past with the use of "ever since".
|
Does this have two meanings: 'how do you like your coffee'? How do you like your coffee? Can I use the above sentence either on an offering situation that I ask if they like it black or with sugar, or during having situation that I ask if the coffee tastes good? When the latter is possible, can next both answers be possible? I like it a lot. It's good. <Q> You may use this in both situations, and indeed in others; the context will make it clear which meaning is intended: If you ask before you start preparing the coffee, you are asking how your hearer prefers their coffee to be prepared— <S> Do you like it strong or weak (or possibly boiled to a black sludge)? <S> If you ask before or as you serve the coffee, you are asking how your hearer 'takes' their coffee— <S> Do you want cream or sugar with your coffee? <S> If you ask after your hearer has started drinking the coffee, you are asking about the taste of the coffee—Is the coffee OK? <S> As for your answers, both are possible, as are many more: <S> It's terrific! <S> It's horrible! <S> It's coffee! <S> It's Blue Mountain, apparently from St Thomas Parish; rather underroasted, to my mind, and a coarser grind should be used with that press. <A> This phrase does have two meanings in US English, as agreed by other posters. <S> For the sake of completeness, I feel compelled to add that in British English, this is a phrase that would only be used when offering coffee. <S> Using it as a question to affirm how much someone was enjoying their coffee would probably be understood, but would sound extremely odd. <S> Instead, British people might say: "Are you enjoying your coffee?" <S> "Is that coffee OK for you?" <S> Or something similar. <S> Divided by a common language and all that. <A> Beyond the answers given by other contributors, I would also add another parse: If asked at a bar at night, when the other party is clearly not drinking coffee, the individual who asked may be implying that they will be making coffee for the other party the following morning; that is, it could also serve as an implicit pick-up line. <A> Context depends greatly on whether I ask: before I give it to you , where it's equivalent to <S> "Would you like milk/sugar/etc.? <S> " after I give it to you , where I'm asking <S> "Do you like it?"/"Is that coffee ok?" <A> As the other answers suggest, "How do you like your coffee? <S> " <S> can indeed have either meaning, depending on context. <S> If you're looking for unambiguous versions, you could instead ask: <S> How do you take your coffee? <S> Meaning: <S> Milk? <S> Sugar? <S> Or How is your coffee? <S> Meaning <S> : Do you like the coffee you're drinking? <A> Be careful of emphasis <S> There are 2 ways of emphasizing the question: <S> How do you like your coffee? <S> How do you like your coffee ? <S> The first is equivalent to 'how do you take your coffee?' <S> , so I would expect it in that context after someone has agreed to or requested some coffee. <S> The second is equivalent to 'how are you enjoying your coffee?' <S> , so I would expect it in the context of someone having tasted some coffee they have received. <S> To this, any answer about the quality or my enjoyment of the coffee is fine, but it is not a yes/no question ('how' requires a full answer). <A> Good question -- in addition to the answers concerned with the various contexts in which this is asked: <S> The ambiguity is as much a question of contrastive focus: <S> How do you like your coffee? <S> How do you like your coffee? <S> How do you like your coffee? <S> How do you like your coffee? <S> How do you like your coffee? <S> How do you like your coffee ? <S> Even context-free, emphasis on the words in bold (or any combination of words in this sentence) affects the meaning. <S> See Wikipedia: Focus (linguistics) for a more technical description of contrastive focus. <A> And thus... <S> * <S> If I want to ask about the 'quality' of coffee, I'd use... <S> How was your coffee? <S> ~ <S> Ah, it was good! <S> OR <S> Did you like the coffee? <S> ~ <S> Yeah, I liked it! <S> If I am asking for a choice , I'd say it this way - Which coffee would you like to have? <S> Black or with sugar? <S> Note that I'd prefer using <S> would and not do ! <S> I'm offering the guest and coffee hasn't come yet! <A> It's easier to see the meaning if you expand the two sentences to avoid the ambiguity: <S> How do you like your coffee [to be]? <S> And the second definition: <S> How do you like your coffee [in front of you]? <S> The latter is usually instead said without the "how" (in fact, I have a feeling including the "how" is grammatically incorrect), just as: <S> Do you like your coffee? <S> Or even more clear: <S> How is your coffee? <A> One other possible interpretation is if it's being said by someone who doesn't like coffee, in an incredulous manner: <S> How do you like your coffee?? <S> I hate it! <S> (This is me. :))
| The sentence looks ambiguous and hence, it can be used for both the situations.
|
Can I tell someone I am 'Glad you have it resolved'? having a bit of a confusion how to properly format a sentence: Glad you have it resolved But this seems right too: Glad you have resolved it My gut tells me both are correct, although not sure about the first one. Or should it be Glad you got it resolved What is the most proper way? <Q> I'd say that the first actually means a technically different thing. <S> In the first case, you are glad that the other person's issue is now resolved. <S> In the second and third cases, however, you are glad that the other person resolved it. <S> The latter two are referencing the actual completion, as compared to the state of being completed. <S> Loosely (extremely loosely), I can imagine the same case in the scope of...washing a car (totally random example): <S> The first might equate to: <S> I'm glad you've washed your car before. <S> Whereas the latter ones might equate to: <S> I'm glad you washed your car that time. <S> Again, that's a pretty loose take on it, but that's an exaggerated example of the difference. <S> Realistically, which I suppose is probably most of what you're asking, I would probably say the last one. <S> There are certain cases where I'd say the first, but mostly just for a different tone (I'm not really sure why, <S> but it seems rushed to me--"glad you have it resolved, let's move on now"). <A> The difference is primarily on where the emphasis is being placed, and by extension, the possible additional meanings that might be inferred , without any further context. <S> However, remember that context is everything! <S> The first, "Glad you have it resolved" emphasizes that the speaker ("I") is glad, and that it's because the problem is resolved. <S> It's somewhat open as to how it got resolved. <S> It could be because "you" solved it, or because someone or something else solved it for you. <S> However, the difference between those first two is very subtle, and open to disagreement among native English speakers. <S> Both are 100% grammatically correct for all meanings that either might have. <S> Both can mean that you solved the problem, or that you had someone or something else solve the problem, or that the problem just resolved itself without any action (e.g., the drought ended because it rained). <S> The third, "Glad you got it resolved" is effectively the same exact meaning as the first, but using a more informal (and more common in spoken word) verb "got" instead of "have". <A> All the three sentences are grammatically correct, with the only difference mentioned below: The first sentence "Glad you have it resolved" means that "Glad you get someone to resolve it for you". <S> But I think you mean to say "Glad you have had it resolved". <S> In this case, it express we "Glad you have got it resolved by somebody (somebody has resolved it for you)". <S> The second sentence "Glad you have resolved it" indicates that "you have resolved it yourself". <S> The third sentence "Glad you got it resolved" shows like the first one that "Glad you had it done by somebody (somebody resolved it for you)". <S> So, it's up to you which one to you, depending on the context. <S> The use of "have" is a bit formal as in the first sentence.
| From the American English perspective, all three are grammatically correct. The second, "Glad you have resolved it" emphasizes the participation of you in getting it resolved, whether by direct action or indirectly by having someone or something else take care of (resolve) it for you.
|
Choosing the right word : studying or working? This question about when to choose the word work or study: Situation 1: Adam: "Hey, are you up to going out?" Jamie : "Well I wish but I can't. Sorry. Since I have to finish and hand in my project by Monday, I have to study/work for the next few days. Thank you, though." Situation 2: Jamie's Mother: "Thank you for coming, aunt Beth." Aunt Beth: "It is nice to see you again. So where is Jamie? I haven't seen him for ages. He must be a man now." Jamie's Mother: "Well Jamie is not at home. He went to Boston. He is studying medicine." Probably we can use the word work in the Situation 1, but for me when I say " I am working " it sounds like I am using my body more than my brain. A professor could be working in his/her room I think but it sounds more professional again for me. So my question is that if both conversations are ok and if we use the word work Would there be a difference in terms of meaning? <Q> To me, studying implies that you are learning something new. <S> It's usually used in an academic context: <S> Sorry <S> I can't go out; I need to study for a test next week. <S> Bill is going to Oxford next year where he will study history. <S> The zoologist spent 8 years studying insects before she wrote that paper. <S> but it can also be used when conducting some sort of analysis: We will be studying the safety habits of our factory workers to see if we can't cut down on injuries next year. <S> Work can imply physical work, as you mention, but it can also be used when describing any kind of mental exertion: <S> It took a lot of work to solve last week's crossword puzzle! <S> I'll be working on my term paper, so I can't go out with you guys tonight. <S> I'm working on coming up with some fun ideas for the baby shower. <S> In short, work is a very general term, which study seems more narrowly focused. <S> As to Jamie's quote: I have to finish and hand in my project by Monday, so I have to <S> study/work for the next few days. <S> I think work is the best word if Jamie pretty much knows what to do already, and it's just a matter of doing the work. <S> For example, if Jamie is writing a computer program, or a term paper, or painting something for an art class, that's generally work . <S> However, if the project is a matter of answering 10 short answer questions, but Jamie will need to do a lot of research in order to answer those questions, then the word study might be appropriate. <A> I usually use "I will be working on it" in a context with word "project". <S> It can be applied to "Situation 1". <A> Studying may require work or effort, but when you say "I am working this weekend" or "I have to work this weekend. <S> ", it commonly means that you are going to do your profession or job. <S> These two sentences are similar <S> I have to study this weekend. <S> I have to work on my project this weekend. <S> These two sentences imply you have to go do a job that you're getting paid to do. <S> I have to work this weekend. <S> I have to work at the coffee shop this weekend. <S> In your second situation, I don't understand where or how you would like to use the word work.
| If you explain what you're working on, it's OK to use it for something other than going to a job.
|
Should I use "don't" or "didn't" in the following sentence? She refused meeting me, ignored my calls, and did her best so we don't/didn't cross paths at school. I'm not sure whether I should use don't or didn't in the sentence above. <Q> It really just depends on the relationship between "narrative time" (that you're writing/speaking about ), and "utterance time" (when the statement is actually made ). <S> That's to say, if it's relevant now (at time of speaking) that you still don't cross paths, present tense don't is appropriate. <S> But if you're reminiscing (perhaps decades later) about your schooldays, say, then it's all in the past - so you'd use <S> didn't . <S> Not directly relevant, but idiomatically <S> , "She refused meeting me" is extremely unlikely/ungainly here. <S> It would normally be " <S> She refused to meet me" . <A> I'd just cast it differently <S> She refused to meet me, ignored my calls, and did her best to avoid us crossing paths at school. <A> It should be "didn't". <S> The sentence up to this point has been in the past tense, so it wouldn't make sense to switch to present tense for this one verb. <S> I would also change "did her best <S> so we didn't cross paths" to <S> "went out of her way to make sure we didn't cross paths" <A> While I would prefer "didn't" to "don't" in this situation, I don't think either one is correct. <S> The subordinating conjunction "so" calls out for the subjunctive. <S> So the correct word would be "wouldn't." <S> She refused to meet me, ignored my calls, and did her best so we wouldn't cross paths. <S> There are, of course, other ways to cast the sentence. <S> Someone I talked to suggested that "did her best to" is more idiomatic, so the sentence becomes <S> She refused to meet me, ignored my calls, and did her best to ensure we wouldn't cross paths.
| Either way, "wouldn't" is the better word choice.
|
What's the meaning of "I can only imagine"? I commonly see sentences constructed like: "I can only imagine how much time she spent on [something]." I can't grasp the meaning of " I can only imagine", however. In what contexts would this expression be used? Is it for emphasis, or for poetic style, or simply to seem fancy or posh? <Q> As others have noted, context is quite important for phrases like this. <S> As a generalisation, however, "I can only imagine" usually indicates one of two things (which often overlap somewhat in practice). <S> That the speaker is talking about something unusual, extreme, shocking, or otherwise exceptional. <S> "I can only imagine what it must have been like inside that burning building." <S> "I can only imagine what winning a Nobel Prize feels like" That the speaker has no way of knowing something (and therefore has to use their imagination to fill in the blank spaces). <S> "Who is that coming towards us?" <S> "I can only imagine." <A> It's a sort of an empathy statement for someone who shared bad experience(s) that you've never been gone before, and you're trying to let them feel how strong you see they are while under that circumstances. <S> Sample Scenario: <S> Someone's Mom died and says, "My mom is the one who teaches me everything in this world, except to live without her." <S> (ouch!)Like, Damn son... <S> I almost cried while typing this and why the hell I came up on this idea for a sample scenario? <S> Because I can only imagine how tough it is, but I don't know if I can bear the sadness and emotion when it happens to me. <A> The context is important. <S> But broadly, I can only imagine means the speaker can think of something hypothetical. <S> The thing has not happened but he can have a picture of it. <A> There could be different contexts in which this phrase can be used. <S> I'll make one up here. <S> Consider the following context. <S> There are children in few African countries who go hungry everyday. <S> They even go hungry to the point of being reduced to just one layer of skin over there body. <S> Now for us, it is safe to assume that most of us are not going to face this situation in our life. <S> So what would be you reaction watching the news about this thing or seeing the pictures of these scrawny little kids. <S> 'I can only imagine how it must be to go hungry everyday' - <S> (Because you can't possibly understand their feelings or situation as you have never experienced them in your life.) <S> What else we can only imagine ?- <S> (Things we never experienced and probably will never experience) 1. <S> We can only imagine the aftermath of nuclear explosion.2. <S> We can only imagine the sufferings of Jews in world war two.3. <S> He was eaten alive by the crocodile. <S> - How horrific !! <S> - We can only imagine his agony.4. <S> I can only imagine how it feels like being the richest man in the world. <S> However if we take out the word 'only' in the above sentece then it would mean that you understand someone's concern / problem / feelings etc, because you know / understand <S> / experienced sth yourself <S> For example Suppose if your boss severely tells off one of your collegues in a meeting room for poor performance and later that collegue comes out of the meeting room and says Collegue - The boss really got at me in the meeting <S> You - <S> yeah I can imagine. <S> (Here you can actually figure out whatever things the boss must said to your collegue since you have had the same experience in the past before) <A> I can only imagine what it will be like when my kids see me after four years. <S> I can only imagine how my parents all be happy when they know I stood first in my examinations. <S> I can only imagine how it feels to be blind. <S> You use such a phrase "to think or form an idea/picture in your mind of what someone or something will be like".
| The intended implication is "I have to use my imagination to visualise that, because I have never had a real experience that I can compare it to."
|
to have on the payroll Other statistics come from a separate survey of about 160,000 business establishments that employ over 40 million workers. When you read a headline that says the economy created a certain number of jobs last month, that statistic is the change in the number of workers that businesses report having on their payrolls . Do I understand it correctly that businesses report the number of employees that they keep on the staff ? I am not sure whether they report the number or the change in the number. <Q> For example, if I have a small business with 10 employees, I might say: My business has ten workers on the payroll. <S> You've also interpreted the phrase "the change in the number of workers that businesses report having on their payrolls" correctly. <S> For example, if I had ten workers in 2014, but my business is expanding, so I hire two more in 2015, then my payroll was expanded by 20%. <S> However, the metric discussed in your quote isn't so much concerned with a single business; rather, it analyzes data from 160,000 businesses combined. <S> So, I might hire two new workers, but, if these workers had been working somewhere else, the net gain would be zero, because, even though I have two more workers, two other businesses might have one less worker. <A> "To have on payroll" basically just means "to routinely pay." In a majority of cases, an "employee on payroll" is redundant, and said only to reinforce the fact that we aren't talking about contract workers. <S> So no, I'd say it sounds like the business reports the change , and not the actual number. <S> The idea is that you want to know how many jobs created (the new number of jobs minus the old number) to know the growth rate of the economy. <S> "We hired three hundred employees last month" would tell you more about the growth rate than simply knowing the total number they have. <S> Of course, this particular quote is talking about 160,000 businesses, but the same thing applies. <A> I suppose this is the difference between "permanent/regular" employees which are paid by the company and are so on the payroll, and contractors (and "employees" provided by third party companies such as cleaners) who will be "off-payroll" as they will be paid via different manners (such as invoices). <S> Temporary employees may also be excluded from the "on payroll" figures (especially if they are used for less than a month) as they may be paid "cash in hand/self-declare tax" but this may vary depending on location (in the UK, you would still have to put them on the payroll).
| Yes, on the payroll is an expression often used in business and economics to describe how many employees a company has hired.
|
I left them (at) home Consider this question: Where are they (things or people)? Would the following answer be with (at), without it or either one? I left them (at) home I have done a quick Google search and found quotes for both cases, with and without: This Widow's 4 Kids Were Taken After She Left Them Home Alone. Leaving Your Child Home Alone - KidsHealth Gerry said, "I left them at home ." Gerry sat down and turned on the TVset just as Mark would have done. I read about "home" being an adverb but also know "stay at home moms" for example. So you see I need definite answers. <Q> If the choice is between <S> I left them at home and I left them home <S> I would always choose at home . <S> at home, along with such other phrases as at work and at school, are fixed and extremely common. <S> So common that I would not depart from them. <S> I would also never say I left them work or ...school. <S> Yes, home can be an adverb, but I would use this mainly to answer the question <S> Where are you going? <S> (I'm going) home. <S> He left the kids home alone. <S> But my feeling is that the use of the latter phrase remains popular in some respects because of the popular movie of the same name: Home Alone , and its sequels. <A> Both usages are acceptable. <S> This is an easy one to get stuck on. <S> The trick here is that home is both an idea and a location . <S> Consider the word alone . <S> You would say Leave me alone. <S> but not Leave me at alone. <S> because alone is an idea and not a location. <S> Conversely, my house is a location and not an idea. <S> So, you could say I forgot them at my house. <S> but not I forgot them my house. <S> Thus, when you say I left them home. <S> You are referring to the idea of home; whereas, I left them at home. <S> refers to the location. <S> Note that while these are slightly different usages of the word, they are commonly understood to mean the same thing. <S> Edit: To make things easier, home as a noun means <S> the place where one lives and <S> as an adverb it means at the place where one lives <S> So, you can leave something at home (noun), or you can leave something home (adverb). <A> I can't help but think of the German heimgehen and nach <S> Hause gehen <S> (= go home in both cases). <S> The second formula is like in latin languages, where there is no such thing as home, there's just "the house", and you "go to the house" if you're going home (in French it would be "à la" <S> , in other languages it's often just "a/à" without the article), while the first makes sense only in German and English (go home/heimgehen). <S> Marginal note: if you left something at home, it's zu Hause . <S> I'm a romance native speaker <S> and I'm thus used to having particles such as at everywhere, while this is not so in germanic languages, except for English which is heavily influenced by French and so is a bit of a middle ground. <S> Considering all of this, I'm pretty sure that the popularity of I left the kids home is definitely not due to a movie <S> but it's due to some ancient germanic grammar, because the same "feature" is present in both German and English. <S> Except that in German heim is always used without the equivalent of "at" so there's no ambiguity, you either say "home" without the "at" or you say "house". <S> All in all, I would be pretty sure that both are correct <S> and it's not like <S> either one of them is due to a modern fad.
| As far as home alone , this expression is fine, in either He left the kids at home alone. They are both common but at home is more consistent with similar expressions such as at work .
|
How is "doze off" different from just "doze"? How is doze off different from just doze ? I think they mean the same thing— sleeping lightly. What's the difference between them? <Q> We were watching a movie. <S> When I turned to look at him, I discovered that he had dozed off . <S> To doze off means to transition from a wakeful state into a light sleep. <S> I was watching a movie in headphones. <S> Now and then I turned to look at him to make sure he was still dozing . <S> Let's explore "still dozed", with and without off : ( still dozed ) <S> The two ponies still dozed at the hitching-rail. <S> The ponies continued to doze. " <S> Still" is used in the sense "even then". <S> (still dozed off) <S> She read the omnipresent billboards to keep awake but still dozed off a couple of times. <S> The woman was transitioning from wakefulness to light sleep and back a couple of times. <S> "Still" is used in the sense "despite something" (despite her desire to stay awake). <S> P.S. <S> Furthermore, per Damkerng T's comment and in agreement with Khan's awnswer, "dozing off" is done involuntarily, while you can "doze" at your will. <A> There is a little difference between the words "doze" and "doze off". <S> First, "doze" can be used as a verb as well as a noun, whereas "doze off" is used as a verb only. <S> Second, as a verb "doze" means to sleep lightly for a short period such as I like to doze after lunch in the afternoon. <S> On the other hand, when we use "doze off" it means to start or fall into a light sleep without intending to such as she dozed off during the lecture in class. <A> Don't get much into the subtlety it has. <S> Broadly, both mean the same. <S> It's just that the verb doze is often followed by off . <S> It's a way of writing. <S> Dictionary.com has this entry. <S> (often followed by 'off') to fall into a light sleep <S> The example follows <S> He dozed off during the sermon .
| To doze means to sleep lightly, but lacks this emphasis on transition from wakefulness to sleepiness.
|
Can I say something causes "to blood pressure be low"? Should I need to use the word "TO", or maybe I can say Keep standing for a long time causes to blood pressure BE low. <Q> Remove 'keep' from the start. <S> I would say better write it <S> this way- <S> Standing for a long time causes low blood pressure. <A> I can't make sense of the word "keep". <S> It seems to be a verb that lacks a subject. <S> We could make it an infinitive if we want it to serve as the subject of the sentence. <S> We could simply lose it and let the gerund "standing" act as the subject on its own. <S> "Standing for a long time" is a perfectly suitable subject. <S> "Causes" is a perfectly suitable verb. <S> "To blood pressure" seems to be a prepositional phrase that doesn't make any sense. <S> "Blood pressure" is a noun, so this "to" can't be an infinitive marker. <S> I have no idea what the preposition "to" is trying to do. <S> Just "Blood pressure", without a leading preposition, is a perfectly suitable direct object. <S> The rest of the sentence needs to be an object complement. <S> The verb "cause" licenses a normal infinitive as its object complement. <S> The verb "make", on the other hand, licenses a bare infinitive in the same role. <S> Standing for a long time causes blood pressure to be low. <S> Standing for a long time makes blood pressure be low. <S> There is no clear pattern to which verbs license ordinary infinitives and which license bare infinitives. <S> The verbs that license bare infinitives are fairly rare, and pretty much have to be learned one at a time. <S> Two options you may want to consider are "to decrease" and "to drop". <S> Standing for a long time causes blood pressure to drop. <S> Standing for a long time makes blood pressure decrease. <S> The governing verb (in this case, "causes" or "makes") <S> determines what kind of object complement, if any, can be used. <S> If the verb is "causes", then the object complement needs to be an infinitive. <S> If the verb is "makes", then the object complement can be a bare infinitive, an adjective, or a noun. <S> Do not say " to blood pressure" in this sentence. <S> The prepositional phrase has no useful job to do, and the verb requires a direct object. <S> If the verb is "causes", do use an infinitive with the "to" marker as the object complement. <S> Pick a clear and useful verb for this purpose. <A> Because the word 'keep' in this context means 'to remain' and is followed by the clause for 'for a long time', I would probably construct the sentence using one or the other but not both. <S> The sentence would then be, "Standing for a long time causes blood pressure to be low."; or better still, "causes low blood-pressure"; or, "To keep standing [will] cause[] <S> [the subject's] blood-pressure to be low"; or again, "To keep standing causes low blood-pressure." <A> Some verbs in English may be followed by an object and then by an infinitive with the particle to . <S> Prolonged standing causes the blood pressure to decrease . <S> The key verb here is " causes ": <S> it takes the object blood pressure <S> and then the so-called to-infinitive "to decrease". <S> The same applies to your sentence: <S> Standing for a long time causes the blood pressure to be low. <S> Some verbs indeed can take another verb without to . <S> These are: Let, make, help Let <S> my blood pressure be low. <S> This pill makes your blood pressure decrease . <S> It helped me <S> decrease my blood pressure. <S> Verbs connected with feeling, seeing or hearing: <S> feel, notice, see, hear, overhear, watch .. <S> The nurse saw <S> the patient's blood pressure decrease and, relieved, went on to help others. <S> Reference: <S> Cambridge Dictionaries Online, " Verb Patterns ".
| There is nothing wrong with the infinitive phrase "to be low", but there are better choices available.
|
What exactly is being "obnoxious"? I have come across this word quite many times, and can only understood vaguely. I think it means unpleasant and aggressive. When I looked the word up in the dictionary, I didn't get much help. Macmillan defines it as: obnoxious ( adj. ) very rude, offensive, or unpleasant : an obnoxious child; an obnoxious habit While TFD says: obnoxious ( adj. ) causing disapproval or protest; - Example: "a vulgar and objectionable person" With such vague definnitions, it is not easy to "grasp" the meaning of this word just from reading the dictionaries. I would like some expertise from people who speak English on a daily basis. I'm trying to figure out, for example, what do these phrases mean? Do they sound natural to a native speaker: "That guy looks obnoxious." "This dinosaurs looks obnoxious." "I was acting obnoxiously." When exactly do you use obnoxious to describe something? Does it have a feel of hatefulness towards the subject? <Q> The definition obnoxious (adj.) very rude, offensive, or unpleasant : an obnoxious child; an obnoxious habit is almost correct, but as commonly used, obnoxious also implies that the offensiveness is difficult to ignore. <S> An obnoxious child is not just rude, but loudly or aggressively so. <S> An obnoxious color or combination of colors is unpleasant but also intense or bright like the way the building in the linked article was painted: I would rewrite the definition as obnoxious (adj.) <S> very rude, offensive, or unpleasant in a way that is difficult to ignore : an obnoxious child; an obnoxious habit <S> I don't know if I feel hatefulness toward an obnoxious person - I think it's too strong a word. <S> I would describe it as strong dislike mixed with annoyance. <A> My impression is that the word <S> I wouldn't consider a dinosaur obnoxious, but I might talk about obnoxious football fans, an obnoxious and pushy salesman, or an obnoxious patron at the library whose boisterous laugh keeps making it hard for others to concentrate. <S> I can see why this would be a tricky word to understand. <S> Most dictionary definitions are terse and broad: for example, Collins says little more than "extremely unpleasant"; CDO says, "very unpleasant or rude"; Macmillan says "very rude, offensive, or unpleasant. <S> " <S> My Mac's on-board thesaurus lists a plethora of synonyms, many of which I don't think align very well with the gist of obnoxious : unpleasant, disagreeable, nasty, distasteful, offensive, objectionable, unsavory, unpalatable, off-putting, awful, terrible, dreadful, frightful, revolting, repulsive, repellent, repugnant, disgusting, odious, vile, foul, abhorrent, loathsome, nauseating, sickening, hateful, insufferable, intolerable, detestable, abominable, despicable, contemptible ; informal horrible, horrid, ghastly, gross, putrid, yucky, godawful, beastly, skanky ; <S> I did some research on the word, and didn't find much that would help put the word's use into focus. <S> In the 1800s, the word was often used to describe unpopular laws. <S> Gandhi wrote, "We have already examined the various reasons why we ought not to submit to the obnoxious law." <S> However, I think contemporary English would favor a word like outrageous over obnoxious when talking about unjust laws. <S> As for your question ("Does it convey a feeling of hatefulness?"), I'd be inclined to say it expresses a strong feeling of annoyance, but not necessarily hatefulness – <S> at least that's my perception of modern usage. <A> Someone who unpleasantly just verbally unloads their thoughts without any filter, or with little respect for the give and take that characterises most conversations. <S> I think it is different from a 'straight talker' or someone who is honest. <S> In the movie 'When Harry met Sally' the latter calls the former obnoxious, and I think that is a good example.
| obnoxious usually refers to behavior that is loud, rude, impolite, or rambunctious.
|
May I use 'kid boy' the way we use 'baby boy'? We often say... There was a baby boy The purpose is I want the listener to understand that I saw a baby who was of male gender. But I want to convey the same thing looking at a kid (say 5-8 yr old) There was a kid boy (hurling stones at a cute puppy) If the former is okay , the latter should be but still, to my non-native ears, it sounds off. Also, baby boy is okay as baby serves as an adjective, why is not kid okay as in kid brother ? I understand that the whole word is considered as a noun but then kid is more like an adjective there. [ Please note that I want to restrict the word to 'kid' over 'young boy' or the like just to avoid that someone should not take him as an adolescent or a teenager. I'm not getting into who do we refer to as a kid . There's no one answer to that]. The main question is -is it okay to address him that way? If not, what you natives prefer? <Q> My gut feeling aligns with yours – it sounds off to me. <S> I did some research on Google that seems to confirm our hunches. <S> One reason it sounds off, I think, is because kid and boy both connote a young age. <S> So, the phrase sounds redundant. <S> You could simply say: There was a boy hurling stones at a cute puppy. <S> or: There was a kid hurling stones at a cute puppy. <S> I suppose one could argue that a "boy" could be an adoloscent, so, some clarification about age might be in order. <S> However, if you wanted to clarify, you could say: <S> There was a young boy hurling stones at a cute puppy. <S> Ngrams found plenty of hits for "a young boy" and "a young girl," but came back empty-handed for "a kid boy" and "a kid girl". <S> I found several hits on Google for "a kid boy", but they were excellent examples of why hit counts need to be examined carefully. <S> Many of them had extra punctuation, like this: <S> If you had a kid, boy or girl, and wanted to know... <S> Some even used the word boy as an exclamation, like this Pinterest tag: <S> Pins about <S> : Toys I had as a kid. <S> Boy I miss them! <S> There were several hits that were labels to stock illustrations : <S> Illustration of a Kid Boy Dressed as Prince <S> Sitting on a Student Chair but redundancy makes sense in that context, because those who title images in an image database want customers to get hits if they search for boy or search for kid. <S> But I'd avoid it in a context like the one you are asking about. <A> This is really a question about redundancy Kid = a child (colloquial) <S> Baby = an infant Boy = a male child <S> Therefore <S> Which makes sense, as we're specifying that the boy is not just a boy, but is a baby. <S> Without boy we do not know the gender, but without baby we do not know it is an infant <S> On the other hand: [Kid] boy = A male child, [who is a child] "kid" is redundant, "boy" already tells us that the subject is a child, we do not need to add "kid" in addition to this. <S> Note that other uses continue this convention <S> [Kid] brother = <S> A [young] male sibling, as opposed to a male sibling of unspecified age Again, the 'kid' is adding context, that the brother in question is a child. <S> This has passed into colloquial use as "younger" brother, even when both siblings are adults, but this is an informal extension of the literal meaning. <A> As CopperKettle says, you can't use both together like that; you really need to choose one over the other. <S> 'Kid' is colloquial, 'boy' is formal & far less likely to be misunderstood - whether or not young goats can throw stones the image would be there for someone to pick up on. <S> US usage would allow 'kid brother' to indicate a younger sibling, but it won't stretch to 'kid boy'. <S> Some Br E dialects use 'our kid' to mean 'my brother' but age isn't specified in that - could be older or younger. <S> To give any indication of his actual age, you'd have to be more specific - "There was a boy of about 8… or even, "There was a pre-pubescent boy… or just "There was a young boy.. <S> Interestingly, using 'a boy of about [age]' - it seems fairly natural to say a boy of about 5, or 6 or 8 or 10… but 7 or 9 doesn't work in my head, for no real reason I can think of. <A> Young boy is accurate, but to me it would sound stiff.... similar to saying "elderly man" (formal) instead of "old man" (common.) <A> I guess "a kid boy" would not sound natural. " <S> Baby" is used widely in an adjective sense with "boy" or "girl", but I've never saw or heard "kid" used in the same way. <A> While "Baby" can be a noun or adjective, in this instance "Baby" becomes an adjective - thus "Baby Boy" means a boy that is a baby. <S> (Substitute another adjective and it makes similar sense, i.e. "Hungry Boy") <S> - "Baby Boy" is a phrase that is entirely a noun, but if you look at the individual pieces it's Adj. <S> / Noun. <S> "Kid" is, however, not an adjective. <S> Since "Kid" is a colloquial term ("Kid" being a young goat), it makes little sense to say "Kid-Boy" because it essentially means "Young-Goat Boy." <S> Substitute another noun, and you'll have the same "weird" sound - "Son Boy."
| As an American English speaker, I'd personally say "I saw a little boy (hurling stones at a cute puppy)." [Baby] boy = a male child, [specifically a baby]
|
The usage of either or Here are a few sentences. The first one made me confused. You can have either the £15 cotton top or the £17 cotton-and-polyester blouse. You can't have both. Which of these apples would you prefer? ~ I don't want either of them, thanks. The sisters in the photograph were standing on either side of their dad. (OR: ...on each side..., OR: ...on both sides....) I can understand 2nd and 3rd sentences, but the first sentence sounds more like "you can have both of them" in terms of meaning. And I can't find a general rule or formula if somebody asks me when "either" means both and when it means none of them. But when I ponder it a little further I thought maybe if I can rewrite the sentence by omitting "or" as You can have either the £15 cotton top and the £17 cotton-and-polyester blouse. This time could it mean "you can have both"? <Q> Let me try to paraphrase your sentences: You can choose one -- the £15 top or the £17 blouse. <S> Which one apple do you want? <S> I don't want this one or that one. <S> The sisters were standing near their Dad -- one on one side and the other on the other. <S> You shouldn't think of "either" as "both". <S> You shouldn't think of "either" as "none". <S> Instead, think of "either" as "an alternative". <S> The sisters were standing on alternate sides of their Dad. <S> When offered apples, you didn't want any one of the two alternatives. <S> You can buy one of the alternative garments, but not both. <S> Because "either" is an alternative, it's singular. <S> You can have either one of these choices: the £15 top or the £17 blouse. <S> Which of these apples do you want? <S> I don't want either one. <S> In those sentences, you're not being offered both. <S> You're being offered a choice of one from a pair. <S> The last sentence is a bit more complicated. <S> Not only did each sister make a choice, but each sister made a different choice. <S> Each one stands on one side, but the two are not standing on the same side. <S> If you use "on either side", then I know there are two sisters, one for each side. <S> If you say "on both sides" then I have no idea how many sisters there are. <A> Technically, saying "You can't have both" is unnecessary, as that's what "either" means. <S> So therefore, you cannot say "either this and that" - "either" and "and" just don't work together, logically. <A> Murat asked in one of the comments: <S> Can I ask , does "You can have either apple" mean " <S> you can have one apple " if there are two apples..and it doesn't makes sense if there are more than 2 apples, do it? <S> Similarly, he asked about the seeming contradiction in the way either is used in his first and third examples. <S> I think a good way of thinking about "either," to start with, is in the "either... or" sense, the way it's used in the first example. <S> Then think of the other, seemingly different, uses as shortcuts or collapsed versions of this basic "either... or" sense. <S> Thus you could think of "You can have either apple" as shorthand for "You can have either this apple or that one." <S> Similarly, you can think of "The sisters in the photograph were standing on either side of their dad" as shorthand for "Each sister in the photograph was standing on either this side or that side of their dad" (with the implication that they both cannot be on the same side). <S> I would think of this kind of shorthand use of either a special, idiomatic use that is convenient and offers more concise expression in common circumstances. <A> "Either and or" are paired in the same way as "neither and nor" are paired. <S> Either...or are used when you talk about a choice between two things. <S> It's ambiguous when you mean "you can not have both of them". <S> It also does not mean that you can have both of them. <S> Instead, it means that you can have one of them; it doesn't matter which. <S> The word "either" has been used in your first sentence as a conjunction. <S> The use of "either" to mean "both" is a bit limited. <S> It's usually used with the words "side/end/hand, for example, there are trees on either side of the road, they were sitting on either side of their father, there is a toilet at the either end of the corridor, he was wearing rings on either hand, etc. <S> Regarding the last sentence, you can not use "either......and" to mean "both" or "one or the other". <S> So the construction of the sentence "you can not have either the £15 cotton top and the £17 cotton-and-polyster blouse" doesn't sound correct".
| "Either" here is being used as an exclusive-or , which means "one but not both".
|
Can I say "relieve the load on the servers"? Suppose I have taken some measures thus the load borne by the server is reduced. Could I say that I have "relieved the load on the server"? Oxford dictionary gives the usage of "relieve" that "Cause (pain, distress, or difficulty) to become less severe or serious", but I don't know whether this usage of "relieve" applies to "load". Another usage of "relieve" given by the same page from oxford dictionary is that "(relieve someone of) Take (a burden) from someone", but what I want is to reduce the load on the server instead of removing the load from the server. Any suggestions will be appreciated. <Q> Yes. <S> It assumes that your listener or reader knows or can readily infer that the load was a problem or difficulty (e.g., that it was too heavy) before you relieved it. <S> If the context requires more precise language, you can find some; however, it appears to make perfect sense in most real-world contexts. <S> http://i.word.com/idictionary/relieve <S> We also find an apposite dictionary definition: "6. <S> reduce (a pressure, load, weight, etc., on a device or object under stress): to relieve the steam pressure; to relieve the stress on the supporting walls. " <S> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relieve?s=t <A> As ColleenV commented, "reduced" would definitely be most common. <S> "mitigated" is technically correct but sounds like you are trying hard to use an impressive word -- a native speaker would almost never use "mitigate" here. <S> "relieved" is actually fine, and I could see a native speaker using it. <A> Relief connotes a short-lived reduction of some distress or pain. <S> To reduce the load suggests that the effect will be more long-lasting and possibly permanent.
| It means that you either made the load less serious or that you eliminated it completely. It is a correct phrase.
|
How is "better off" different from just "better"? By definition of Cambridge Dictionaries Online The word 'better' means comparative of good: of a higher quality or more enjoyable than someone or something else By most dictionaries, better off means better economically. For example: "The better–off people live in the older section of town." By some dictionaries, better off can also mean the same as just the word better For example: "Steve’s an idiot – you’d be better off without him." In this example above, better off is used just like better. Am I right? So what's the difference between "better" and "better off"? In what contexts would using "better off" be better(or better off) than just using "better"? <Q> "Better off" means having better circumstances. <S> Possessing wealth is the most obvious way to have better circumstances. <S> If better people live in the older section of town, we're talking about the people themselves being better, not their circumstances. <S> Perhaps they're more moral, perhaps they're more intelligent, but something about the people themselves is better. <S> If better-off people live in that section, we're talking about the people's circumstances. <S> Probably they're wealthier. <S> Perhaps they come from more prestigious families. <S> Still, there's a difference between the people themselves and their circumstances. <S> If you're better off without him, it means that your circumstances improve without him. <S> In this case we're probably not talking about your wealth, but we could be talking about how comfortable your surroundings are or the emotional resources you can retain when you don't need to support the relationship. <S> If you're better without him, then we're talking about an improvement in you. <S> Perhaps you're happier, or you're healthier, or you're better able to think straight. <S> When we're talking about a better person, we're comparing the person directly. <S> When we're talking about a better-off person, we're comparing the person's circumstances, especially the person's possessions. <S> That's the distinction that remains consistent. <A> For example: "Steve’s an idiot – you’d be better off without him." <S> In this example above, better off is used just like better. <S> Am I right? <S> It would sound slightly awkward to leave out the "off" in this case. <S> Saying "better" without the "off" would almost imply that he was making you physically sick, and that you will feel better when you he's out of your life. <S> "Better off" implies that the state of your life will be better when he is no longer in it, and that's probably what you intend here. <S> "better off" is generally used in 2 distinct cases: as an idiomatic synonym for "richer" ("Jack is better off than Joe") <S> when you are comparing choices someone could make or has made ("better off without her"; "better off leaving"; "better off just giving up"; <S> etc). <S> In all these cases there are, at least implicitly, two options, and you are saying that the person will be in a better state if he or she chooses one. <A> Being "better off" means that things (other than yourself) are better for you. <S> That is, you are able to be happier, or be in a better condition. <S> For instance, being "better off" without Steve means that without him, your life would be better. <S> Notice the distinction: <S> Your life is better, not you yourself. <S> That is, being smarter, stronger, kinder, etc. <S> Merely being happier does not count as being "better", unless that happiness is useful for something. <S> e.g. Seeing you happy makes others happy, therefore your happiness makes you better for them. <S> If you're "better" without Steve, it would imply that you yourself have improved somehow. <S> Like, perhaps being around Steve made you a less patient person, or made you physically ill. <S> And now, with Steve gone, you are better to others, or are capable of doing more than you could before. <S> The key here is that "better" does not mean "happier". <S> It means having a functional superiority in some aspect. <S> That is, it is a change within the person (or object) which is "better". <S> Benefits from being "better" could easily apply to people around said person, rather than the person who is "better". <S> When adding "off" the meaning changes to having a functional benefit for the person who is "better off". <S> The person is unchanged, however (Save, perhaps, for being made happier). <A> better = something is better than something else, someone is betterthan someone else better off = <S> someone is in a better situation thansomeone else, someone will have a better situation with/withoutsomething
| Being "better" means being superior in some way.
|
What is a term for the man who is ready to do everything to get money? I am in search for a term that describes someone doing anything to get money. For this, he or she may compromise his or her moral or ethics. Thank You in advance. <Q> The closest term I can think for this person is mercenary - interested only in the money or other personal advantages that you can get from something <S> But then, it serves as an adjective . <S> Note that when the term is used as a noun , it describes a soldier who will fight for any country or group that offers payment . <S> I got the better option: venal - prepared to do dishonest or immoral things in return for money <A> A profiteer tries to make abnormally high profits and is usually seen as someone with questionable scruples <S> An unmarried woman is a gold digger if she is trying to 'trap' a wealthy man into marriage, mostly interested in his wealth. <S> This term, and practice(?) is a bit dated. <S> Ruthless can be used for someone who will stop at nothing, although he doesn't necessarily operate out of a fiduciary motive. <S> A tycoon is someone who has made it big in money, and we know such a person can never have enough. <S> You could use ruthless tycoon . <S> Or just - capitalist. <S> ;) <S> Mercenary is a good word. <S> I would use that before I used venal. <S> ;) <S> A scrooge is, well, a scrooge, someone who hoards money and is loath to depart with it. <S> A shylock is a person of irreputable character (literally) who lends money for an extremely high return. <S> An extortionist will use criminal methods to get money out of people. <S> Money grubber is excellent for one whose main interest in life is acquiring wealth. <A> Maybe "acquisitive" or "avaricious", the latter is more toxic sounding. <A> This answer depends on your context. <S> If you're referring to someone who would rip out their own teeth on command just to get some extra money, then you'd simply call such a person "desperate." <S> (of a competitive situation or activity) fierce and intense; involving the use of ruthless measures. <S> "cutthroat competition led to a lot of bankruptcies" synonyms: ruthless, merciless, fierce, intense, aggressive, dog-eat-dog; vulgar slang: ass-kicking "cutthroat competition between rival firms" In informal speech, you would hear such a person being described as someone willing to part with the most precious and priceless of things for the smallest of gains. <S> It's typical to hear/say something like "He/ <S> she would sell INSERT_SOMETHING_PRICELESS just to make a buck." <S> Some examples: <S> He'd sell his own mother for a buck. <S> He'd sell his kids if he could. <S> He'd sell his soul to get ahead.
| If you're talking about someone who, in business practices of any kind, will do anything they can get away with for the sake of extra profit, you'd say they are " cut-throat ".
|
Difference or similarity between today, these days and nowadays As we frequently hear following sentences: Nowadays, everyone has a smartphone. Everyone has a smartphone these days. Today, everyone has a smartphone. My question is: Is there any difference between nowadays-these days and today? I know that nowadays and these days show us a trend and they are interchangeable. But, can we interchange both of them with 'today'? I want to understand them in the terms of usage. Thanks in advance. <Q> 'Today', used in that way, is a synonym - but I think it smacks of 'Reporterese'. <S> I think it is a forward formation from the old style TV news reporter, standing in the rain in front of a famous building, grimacing into the driving wind & opening with, "Today, in the House of Lords…" <A> IMO... <S> The first two are the same. <S> The third one is similar . <S> It simply means the trend of having a smartphone is on. <S> But the tricky one is the last one especially when it is viewed from different angle . <S> Though it certainly talks about the trend , the word 'today' , I think, goes beyond the trend and might talk about the result . <S> Thus, Today, everyone has a smartphone apart from 'trend', it may also talk about the result of revolution in electronics and telecommunications. <A> I consider the first two to be identical. <S> The third one is identical in most circumstances but "today" in it's literal use can also mean "today alone". <S> If you were in a class and it was halloween then <S> "Today everyone's wearing costumes" probably means only on that specific day. <S> In the case that you're working with a team that all require smartphones which the company is buying for them, then in the context of that team "Today, everyone has a smartphone" again probably means that specific day. <S> Since there's a possibility for mistake, I'd generally avoid alternative three. <S> The first two are unambiguous. <A> When we are using a language , everything must be placed in its own ,so three of them are just near to each other in meaning for I dont think we have got exact synonyms in English ,entries are only approximate .these days means refer to yesterday the day before yesterday tomorrow and the day after tomorrowtoday is absolutely today <S> no morebut now a days is completely refer to this century or the period of time we are living in ...this decade and etc. <S> I am hopeful I could take you in ...
| I'd say that 'nowadays' & 'these days' are direct synonyms.
|
Things that were miracles for us - or "to us"? Let's take two sentences: Things that were miracles for us yesterday seem to be common today. and Things that were miracles to us yesterday seem to be common today. Are they equal in meaning? Or does the first imply "miracles prepared for us" and the second, "things that we contemplated as miracles (regardless of the possible recipient or user of these things)"? <Q> Things that were miracles to us yesterday seem to be common today. <S> would be my preferred form. <S> As you say, "things that we contemplated as miracles (regardless of the possible recipient or user of these things)" would appear to be the intent. <S> Things that we regarded as miracles; [even if you Yoda-ise it, it still works. <S> "things we perceived as miraculous, they appeared to be." ] <S> Things that were miracles for us yesterday seem to be common today. <S> I'm not sure it's wrong <S> [grammarians please correct me if so] <S> but there's the very slight hint of "the manna that inexplicably appears on our front lawn each morning <S> has lost its ability to generate any sense of awe, even though it may still, technically, be a miracle." <S> Edit: <S> I think the second one does just give a hint that the miracle was done for our specific benefit; the first to the benefit of 'humankind in general' 'manna on front lawn' & 'smartphone technology' can be one & the same thing, I guess. <S> It's not like I really know how either of them actually works. <S> Clarke's 3rd Law - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." <A> Yes, no, depends. <S> Roughly speaking, they are equivalent: <S> the first <S> could but does not necessarily imply that you were the subject of the miracle. <S> They are equivalent when talking about miracles where "we" [you and the person you are addressing] are not the subject. <S> They are not equivalent if you use the former to refer to miracles of which "we" are the subject, as the latter wouldn't fit this usage. <S> That said, I doubt anyone would use miracles for us to refer to miracles of which we are the subject. <S> Particularly in your example sentences. <A> This comes from my own volition! <S> Basically the question is something for <S> you and something <S> to you . <S> My two cents are...if something is for you, you are aware of it and are directly involved. <S> Whereas if something is to you, it's affecting you. <S> You might be aware of it but may not be involved in that. <S> Let's take importance for better understanding... <S> In most of the cases, when someone tells you (indirect involvement of yours), we often observe to . <S> Besides taking care of the things that are important to you, you need to give due priority to your partner as well. <S> But when I speak, it links me directly and I am aware of the importance. <S> Find me a job. <S> It is important for me. <S> Now the sentences in concern... <S> As I just tried to make my point clear, I incline toward to because of our indirect involvement. <S> (I just don't know how did I answer this!)
| Things that were miracles for/to us yesterday seem to be common today.
|
To surprise a younger generation - or the younger generation - will be more difficult each year Looking at the kids skillfully using tablets with the help of their small fingers, we understand that to surprise the/a younger generation will be more difficult each year. Is the definite article the at its proper place here, since we are referring to the general concept of "younger generation"? Or should one use a , since a new younger generation might arise each year? Or would both choices work fine? <Q> "The" younger generation would suit better, because we're not talking about "a" specific generation (one which will slowly get older). <S> We're simply talking about the current younger generation at two different points in time (as opposed to the people who are in the younger generation now, compared to the opinion of those same people in 20 years) <S> Remember that a generation isn't a fixed group of people <S> , it's just an approximate grouping of age groups. <S> The current young generation won't become the next one up as a block, it's just that we stop counting individuals within that group over time, and new people come into the group. <S> In this case I'd consider "The younger generation" synonymous with the simpler "The young", which fits the original intent <A> I would prefer the indefinite article, because the sentence is describing a trend that is expected to hold true from generation to generation. <S> Looking at the kids skillfully using tablets with the help of their small fingers, we understand that to surprise a younger generation will be more difficult each year . <S> That means that, thanks to technology, it was harder for my parents to surprise me than it was for my grandparents to surprise my parents, it was even harder for me to surprise my children, and it will be harder still for my children to surprise their kids. <S> It's not referring to a specific generation, but a general truth that holds across generations. <S> That said, the difference is subtle. <S> Either version would be regarded as both understandable and grammatically sound. <A> In the way it refers to a group, it's analogous to "the jet set". <S> In neither case would one use "a". <S> He may be "a jet-setter" but he's a member not of " a jet set" but of " the jet set". <S> P.S. <S> Although one can certainly say something like "A younger generation of artists is attracting the attention of serious collectors. <S> " that is a different meaning of "younger generation" than is used in the question. <S> In my example, "A younger generation" could refer to any of several generations younger than that of the artists whom serious collectors had been collecting. <S> Here in the US that could mean "Gen X-ers" or "Millenials" when the collectors had been collecting the works of "Baby Boomers", say. <S> But " the younger generation" (as it is used here in the US) specifically refers to those who are now, or soon will be, on the cusp of young adulthood. <S> In other words, when grandpa says "the younger generation", pa knows that grandpa means his pubescent and teenage grandkids, not pa's own generation. <A> We're not referring to the general concept of a younger generation. <S> We're referring to a specific, definite generation. <S> Without more context I don't know whether we're talking about the generation of these skilled kids, who will be more difficult to surprise as they age and grow more sophisticated, or we're talking about the generation of kids at this age, who seem to gain an ever-growing set of skills by the time they enter the generation. <S> Whichever case it may be, the reference seems specific enough to require the definite article. <S> It's "this younger generation", not "any younger generation", in question here. <S> There is a test that I find useful. <S> I consider "the" to be a weakened form of "this", and "a" a weakened form of "one". <S> If I can replace the article with the word "this" or "that", then "the" is an appropriate choice. <S> If I can replace it with "one" or "any", then "a" is appropriate. <S> On this basis, to surprise any younger generation doesn't work as well in this sentence as to surprise this younger generation <A> the younger generation will be more.... <S> That's because you are addressing the generation in general. <S> For such futuristic sentence, I'd prefer using the as in... <S> The generation to come over <S> A generation to come . <S> On the other hand, a generation works <S> but it'd <S> , I am afraid, restrict the use of generation as in general.
| In American English, the colloquial phrase "the younger generation" refers to "those on the way to young adulthood". My choice would be the definite article ....
|
In "Give it here!", is "here" a pronoun, adverb, preposition, or what? In the American regionalism, "Give it here! " (i.e. Pass that thing my way -> in my direction -> Give it to me) Questions: What part of speech is the word "here"? That is, is it a pronoun, adverb, preposition, or what? Is the word "here" occupying the indirect object slot of the ditransitive verb? <Q> Notice that it takes the place of a preposition phrase, not a noun. <S> Give it to me . <S> Give it here . <S> Here is not an indirect object in the sentence. <S> It is a locative complement. <S> [ Note: <S> In the nineteenth century, many grammarians thought 'prepositions' were words that came before nouns. <S> This started to change about ninety years ago. <S> Most modern grammarians now understand 'prepositions' as a grammatical class of word. <S> These words, like verbs for example, can sometimes occur before a noun, but sometimes before a verb, before preposition, before a clause - or before nothing at all! <S> In the Original <S> Poster's example <S> we see the preposition here occurring with no object. <S> There is no extra word after this preposition. <S> For an introduction to the grammar of prepositions see: A Student's Introduction to English Grammar Huddleston & Pullum 2005 - or for a simpler introduction: Oxford Modern English Grammar Aarts 2011 ] <A> Traditional grammar would call it adverbial particle, I often say compound particle/element. <S> I can't imagine that all speakers use this expression as it has a strong similarity to German Gib's her meaning Give it to me. <S> This use of here as compound element is slightly different from its use as adverb of place. <S> German differentiates and has two words: her and hier. <S> In traditional grammar "here" is an adverb of place. <S> It is no prepositon as it is not connected with a noun. <S> And it is no pronoun, it does not stand for a noun. <A> What part of speech is the word "here"? <S> That is, is it a pronoun, adverb, preposition, or what? <S> I'll pass, thanks. <S> Is the word "here" occupying the indirect object slot of the ditransitive verb? <S> No. <S> No matter whether we call it an adverb or an intransitive preposition, it still fits the same kind of slot that an adverb or a preposition can fill in this sentence. <S> It's an adjunct, not an argument. <S> It's not filling the same slot as the "me" in "Give me it."
| Here is a preposition. I would say in the idiomatic expression "Give it here" "here" in connection with "give" is element of a compound verb.
|
What do we call a gait in which a person drags his feet? What do we call a gait in which a person drags his feet? Something like wobble or stagger . The person in question walks straight; its just that he's too lazy or tired to lift his feet. <Q> A shambling gait, from the verb to shamble . <S> An example of use: A "tar", but poorly prized, Long, shambling , and unsightly, Thrashed, bullied, and despised, Was wretched Joe Golightly. <S> Another, from " Aaron Stark " by E.A. Robinson: <S> Glad for the murmur of his hard renown, <S> Year after year he shambled through the town, -- <S> A loveless exile moving with a staff; <S> And oftentimes there crept into his ears <S> A sound of alien pity, touched with tears, -- <S> And then (and only then) did Aaron laugh. <A> I would call it a shuffling gait . <S> It could be due to laziness or tiredness. <S> It could also signify a medical problem . <S> It is also a technique used by ultramarathoners . <A> I'm sure there would be a distinction between tired & lazy. <S> Using examples already mentioned… <S> shambling or shuffling gait might signify tiredness rather than laziness. <S> weary gait would definitely imply not making the greatest effort to stride out like a soldier on parade. <S> Though grammatically it might not be the best - idle, lazy or even indolent [of an irritated & irritable adolescent] gait would convey the right meaning; or you could just say they were dragging their feet. <S> Consider the typical Japanese teenager in his/her 250 buck trainers/sneakers… dragging their feet & breaking the shoes down at the backs is fashionable, not lazy. <S> The result, to anyone over 40 looks risible, but so was rock'n'roll to a 1950's parent. <S> Straight from the thesaurus, you could use lumber, totter, dodder, stumble; scuff one's feet; hobble, limp.
| A shuffling gait, from the verb to shuffle .
|
Isn't it redundant to say "X could conceivably ..."? I was reading a letter from Warren Weaver to Norbert Wiener (1949), and this sentence drew my attention: One naturally wonders if the problem of translation could conceivably be treated as a problem in cryptography. What's the point of adding conceivably? E.g. couldn't we simply say: One naturally wonders if the problem of translation could be treated as a problem in cryptography. Definition of conceivably : Use the adverb conceivably when you're talking about something that is believable or possible. You could say, for example, that you'll conceivably still be on time to work after oversleeping, especially if you skip breakfast. Doesn't "could" already convey this meaning of possibility, making the expression "X could conceivably ..." redundant? Or is it a valid way to emphasize on the possibility aspect of the claim? <Q> It does not seem either redundant or merely emphatic. <S> "Conceivably" contrasts with other possible modifiers. <S> For instance, the problem could conceivably be treated in that manner even if it could not effectively be treated as such -- a contrast between theory and practice. <S> The problem could be treated this way -- the treatment is possible <S> The problem could conceivably be treated this way -- the possible treatment can be imagined. <S> The problem could effectively be treated this way -- the possible treatment can be used. <A> "could" by itself simply implies curiosity about the feasibility without any preconceived notion of whether it might be difficult or not. <A> I'd put it down the the 'great academic apology' [term I just coined] <S> Adding redundancy, tautology & apology - methods used to avoid getting straight to the point, rather discussing the weather first. <S> "I'm sorry that I couldn't make it to your party" == <S> "I really couldn't be bothered / didn't want to / had toenails that urgently needed clipping" <S> "I know it's an imposition, but could you possibly see your way clear to… lending me a fiver <S> / copying that document / <S> marrying my sister…" <S> "Could this problem conceivably be treated as…" == <S> "Really... can't you just see that this is absolutely the only method to employ?!?!" <A> Seems like a valid way to emphasize it. <S> I think that: One naturally wonders if the problem of translation could possibly be treated as a problem in cryptography. <S> sounds more natural, though. <A> Conceivably is used in two similar situations: <S> One uses it when it is technically possible to do something, but the author isn't convinced the effort of doing so is worth the trouble. <S> Here the idea would be to dissuade the reader from believing the author recommends taking the approach. <S> This case looks to be slightly different. <S> In this case, it looks like the author expects the reader to consider the process to be very hard and not worth the trouble. <S> In this case, the author is saying, "you probably think this is an absurd idea, but please let me develop it a bit. <S> You'll see that it's worth your time to go down this line of reasoning." <S> It is one example of a very common pattern in English communication, where you assume the tone and language of a hostile reader in order to molify them long enough to get your idea across. <S> Otherwise they might just stop reading when they decide you're too crazy.
| In my mind, "could conceivably" implies that there's substantial doubt whether this could actually be done.
|
Difference between 'has done wrong' and 'has been wronged' Recently I came across the below statement in a quote. "In a crisis when one has done wrong , wrong repentance is required. When one has been wronged , a vigorous defense must be mounted" What is the difference between "has done wrong" and "has been wronged"? <Q> Passive Voice: "one" as object of action <S> When one has been wronged , a vigorous defense must be mounted In this sentence, the verb " to wrong ", meaning "to do something bad to someone", is used in the Passive Voice . <S> Let's illustrate: <S> John wronged Jim. <S> (Meaning: John did something wrong to Jim) <S> Here, the same verb is used in the active voice . <S> Let's remodel to the passive voice : <S> Jim was wronged by John. <S> (Meaning: John did something wrong to Jim; the verb is in the Passive Voice) <S> Here, the meaning is the same. <S> We can change was to has been , shifting the tense from Past Simple to Present Perfect: <S> Jim has been wronged by John. <S> (Meaning: John has done something wrong to Jim) <S> Finally, we can remove "by John", because the Passive Voice makes emphasis on what has happened to a person, and this makes the mention of the agent (John) less important: <S> Jim has been wronged . <S> (Meaning: Someone has done something wrong to Jim) Active voice: "one" as agent In a crisis when one has done wrong , wrong repentance is required. <S> Here, the Active Voice is used. <S> The meaning is: Someone ("one") has done something wrong, hence, a repentance is required. <A> In In a crisis when one has done wrong, wrong repentance is required. <S> wrong means something "one" actually did. <S> But in When one has been wronged, a vigorous defense must be mounted. <S> In this example it seems to be about being accused of something unjustly, hence the "vigorous defense". <A> Has done wrong vs <S> has been wronged If somebody has done wrong, it means that he has done something that is not honest, legal or morally acceptable. <S> If somebody has been wronged, it means that he has been treated in an unfair or unacceptable way.
| wrong means something was done to "one".
|
1. What GB hard disk do you need ? - and similar wordings If i am a shop-keeper and someone walks into my shop asking for a hard disk. And i want to ask him 'how many gb hard disk does he need' How should i ask it ? What GB hard disk do you need ? How many GB hard disk do you need ? My questions are - Which is the correct way to ask this question ? Are there any instances where 'how many' is used like in this example (Because GB is a number) And if i am a customer and i want to know what is the highest gb hard disk that is available in the market. Would you please also frame this question for me ? <Q> I would skip referring to "gigabytes" entirely: <S> How big a hard drive <S> do you need? <S> And if you are a customer, you ask What's the biggest drive on the market? <S> To my (AmE) ears, it seems odd to ask about the number of gigabytes; the thing I'm interested is the size of the drive, and I'd only talk about that until it comes time to specify a number. <A> Neither of your phrasings is acceptable, in my view. <S> By analogy, if you were selling mugs, you would be saying, incorrectly: <S> What milliliter(s) <S> mug do you need? <S> How many milliliters(s) <S> mug <S> do you need? <S> Correct wordings would include: <S> What capacity mug do you need? <S> What capacity mug do you need, in milliliters? <S> How large of a mug do you need (in milliliters)? <S> How many milliliters do you need for the capacity of your mug? <S> For hard disks, you could say any of the following: <S> What capacity hard disk do you need? <S> How large of a hard disk do you need, in gigabytes? <S> How much disk space do you need? <S> How many gigabytes of disk space do you need? <S> When comparing two hard disks, you would speak of… More/greater/higher/larger/bigger capacity <S> More space <S> More gigabytes <S> If you want to splurge, you would ask questions like: <S> What is the largest hard disk available? <S> Which is the largest hard disk you have in stock? <S> (It's generally assumed that when you say largest , you mean capacity, not physical dimensions.) <A> Since you were asked about a hard drive, there is no need to repeat it. <S> do you need? <S> or just: <S> How much capacity do you need? <S> In your example; 2) How many gigabyte hard disk do you need? <S> I would interpret this to mean: <S> How many gigabyte hard disks <S> do you need? <S> which is a different question. <S> In this example, "gigabyte" is just a modifier of "hard disk". <S> However, this point might be opinion based. <A> Since I work with computers a lot, I know that there are plenty more things you could reasonably ask about a hard drive - and that counting gigabytes is a trifle unambitious in these times of multi- terabyte drives. <S> As other answers have noted, you should ask "how big" rather than "how many GB" or "what GB", though of those two, "how many gigabytes" is more correct. <S> But what I would do instead is to produce a list (or display) of relevant products in stock, and invite the customer to choose between the possibilities. <S> Such a list is likely to contain external drives for the desktop or for portable use, internal mechanical drives in 3.5" size for desktop computers or 2.5" for laptops, and several ranges of SSDs (solid-state drives) in 2.5" and M.2 formats. <S> Each will be in a range of capacities - <S> some of the smaller SSDs might be 120GB, while 3.5" HDDs go up to 8TB now (that's 8000GB). <S> At this point, a tech-savvy customer will know what he wants and will immediately choose something, or ask pertinent questions of his own. <S> He'll appreciate your efficiency. <S> But a less assured customer might need help choosing, and that's when you start asking about their budget and intended usage. <S> They probably won't have a specific capacity in mind! <S> For basic uses like "homework" or "email", you would select a product near the bottom of the price range that fits their computer. <S> For "video editing" <S> you should go straight for the 8TB monsters. <S> For "gaming" you could recommend a combination of an SSD (for performance) and HDD (for large games), using their budget as a guide. <S> Example conversation: <S> Cust: <S> I need a hard drive. <S> Shop: <S> We've got lots of hard drives. <S> What kind do you need? <S> Cust: <S> What's the biggest one you've got? <S> Shop: <S> We have an eight-terabyte model. <S> Here it is. <S> Cust: <S> Perfect! <S> I'll take three.
| I would just ask: How many gigabytes/terabytes capacity
|
'Strong' presence, but ________ absence? What would be a good collocation to emphasize the absence of something. A 'strong absence' sounds a bit oxymoronic to me. I want to talk about the absence of certain important aspects in someone's critique of something. Sorry, the context is kind of complex. I think 'striking' may do <Q> "Marked absence" maybe? "striking" as suggested above also seems to work. " <S> Complete" absence seems good for situations where there's a continuum from present to absence ("Complete absence of calories") but less so for say whether an extroverted friend comes to a party ("strong presence") or not ("marked absence"). <A> The first thing coming to mind after complete absence was conspicuous absence , and Google ngrams seems to support my instinct that it is more common than other solutions (besides "complete"): Though "complete" is more common, it seems to me that it is also more neutral. <S> "Marked" and "noticeable" could be considered of the same flavor. <S> If I wanted to emphasize the completeness of an absence, I would pick "complete" or "total," or even "utter." <A> A "complete absence" sounds natural to my (American) ear. <A> A noticeable absence also works. <A> I have seen the phrase "A palpable absence" used in various contexts. <S> It is somewhat figurative, since the literal meaning of palpable is "able to be touched or felt". <A> A sound can be weakly or strongly present, but it can only be absent in one way. <S> 'Strongly present' describes the sound; if there is no sound, I think you need to be describing people's reaction to the lack of sound, or the remaining scene. <S> In my example, the silence isn't strong , but it might be remarkable , or enveloping , or notable or surprising or unexpected or unbelievable or unbroken or all-encompassing . <S> Geoff had a strong presence; the group strongly felt his absence. <S> Company A put in a strong presence at the trade show, Company B was totally absent . <A> Glaring. <S> A glaring absence. <S> It sounds natural to me, though Google doesn't return that many results. <A> How about... <S> A telling absence? <S> The word 'absence' already has some impact when used in a narrative. <S> Remarking on the absence of someone or something offers a wealth of meaning, don't you think? <S> So, the absence may be telling, noticeable, significant, marked, so on and so forth.
| If I wanted to emphasize the obviousness or strikingness of an absence, I would use "conspicuous."
|
What is the spatial explanation of "in" and "on" prepositions when they are contained in sentences holding an abstract meaning? What is the spatial explanation for the preposition "in" or "on" in the following examples: 1- American society is in trouble. (Why do I have to use the preposition "in" instead of the preposition "on" in this sentence? 2- ... in the following sentence... (I don't know if I have to use "on" or "in" in this sentence either.) I just do not know how to apply a spatial meaning ( or imaging in my head to make a difference between in and on ), to correctly use these two preposition, when they are used in sentences holding an abstract meaning. If you can provide an example through a pictorial description, it would better. Thank you to all of you! <Q> There's no quick answer for this. <S> Different words take different prepositions and you just have to learn each case individually. <S> However, generally and abstractly speaking: one finds oneself "in" a predicament: in a crisis, in bad health, in trouble, in an argument, in bankruptcy, in a divorce, etc. <S> words find themselves "in" written formats: in a paragraph, sentence, document, dictionary, letter, etc. <S> "on" can express a dependency: on medication, on welfare, on scholarship; or "on" can describe how you're spending time: on vacation, on a leave of absence; or "on" can describe how you're concentrating your efforts, a point in your progress: on a rampage, on the hunt, on a campaign, on a tirade; on track, (working) on a project, on the last page (of a novel), etc. <A> The thing forms an enclosure around the thing on all or most sides. <S> "On" means that a thing is touching the outside of the other thing. <S> It doesn't completely surround it, but is in contact with and potentially even supporting it. <S> Examples <S> As for your examples: American society is in trouble because the trouble is enclosing society in time. <S> It's not trouble just at this very instant, or just in the past, or just in the future. <S> It's a week (or a month, or a year, or a minute, or whatever) <S> ago, now, and a week hence. <S> It's surrounding and enclosing current society. <S> You talk about a word or phrase being in a sentence because the sentence contains it. <S> In this sentence, the word "word" is after the start of the sentence but before the end. <S> In the previous sentence, even the word "end" was in the sentence, as it was before the period. <S> These words are on your computer screen, as they are on the screen's surface. <S> One one side of the words is the screen, on the other is the air. <S> There was a recent question about the difference between 'in' and 'on' when it comes to beds. <S> The conclusion there was that being outside of the covers <S> makes you on the bed. <S> You're on its surface. <S> If you're actually under the covers, then you are in the bed. <S> You're surrounded on most sides by parts of the bed. <S> English is Hard <S> Obviously there are exceptions, and some situations could be interpreted either way depending on how you look at them. <S> This means that, much of the time, you will simply need to know a set phrase and which preposition is normally used. <A> Referring to the definitions for in : example 1 - sense 10: 10) affected by (a specified state or condition); having ⇒ "he's in trouble; they were in tears" <S> There is no spatial component. <S> example 2 - sense 1: 1) contained or enclosed by; inside; within ⇒ "in the room, in the envelope" It is as mentioned in the definition. <S> on would not be grammatical in either case.
| Guideline Generally speaking, "in" means that something is surrounded by something.
|
Is the adjective phrase "hungry and tired" "attributive" in the sentence "After the long journey, the three of them went back home, hungry and tired"? After the long journey, the three of them went back home, hungry and tired . As for the phrase "hungry and tired" , I can understand that it is used to modify "the three of them". But I cannot figure out its grammatical function in the sentence such as subject, complement, direct object and so on. Is it attributive modifying "the three of them"? Could you please tell me which grammar book details this phenomenon since I haven't found one? <Q> They describe the "the three of them" after the long journey and while they were going back home. <S> To see why they're adjectives, you could make them into adverbs: "The three of them went back home hungrily and tiredly. <S> " The sentence means almost the same thing, but the adverbs make the sentence a little strange since they modify the act of going back home rather than the people. <S> That shifts the emphasis. <S> Presumably the point of the last three words is to emphasize the state of the people, not how they went home. <S> Here's a similar sentence with more-reasonable adverbs: "The three of them went back home quickly and eagerly." <S> "Quickly" naturally modifies the act of going home. " <S> Eagerly" could also be "eager", since it indicates the people's emotion on the way home. <S> ("Quickly and eager" would be a little weird, though, only because it violates the expected parallelism.) <A> The three of them went back home, hungry and tired. <S> "hungry" and "tired" are adjectives. <S> You could rephrase: They went back home <S> and they were hungry and tired. <S> They are hungry and tired, not the way of their going. <S> I don't know which terms are used in English grammars for this use of adjectives, probably more than one. <S> I think in Latin grammar this use is called Prädikativum, at least in my Latin grammar. <S> I tried to find what term is used in my English grammars for this use, but it seems that it is not registered at all. <S> I looked through Oxford Guide to English Grammar by John Eastwood Longman English Grammar by L. G. Alexander. <S> Generally speaking, there are a lot of cases where a verb is not followed by an adverb but an adjective. <S> But this is a grammar chapter that is often neglected in grammars. <S> Some examples: to travel light, to speak true, to arrive safe and sound, to talk big, to get off light, passion ran high, imagination gone wild, to drop dead, A new broom sweeps clean, etc. <A> Terminology aside (traditional vs neo), this sentence is complicated by two things in combination: went home and hungry and tired . <S> We have a verb of effort/motion coupled with adjectives expressing state/feeling. <S> Words that express the way one feels when one is making an effort/moving have an adverbial sense as well as an adjectival sense; they relate both to oneself and to one's effort.
| "Hungry" and "tired" are adjectives modifying "the three of them" (as you suspected).
|
When should I use "both" and "either"? Which of the following sentences is correct? My travel bag has two combination locks, one on either end My travel bag has two combination locks on either end My travel bag has two combination locks, one on both ends My travel bag has two combination locks on both ends <Q> This is one of my pet hates… Use "…one on each end." or rather, after useful comments, "...one at each end." <S> Saves so much confusion. <S> "two combination locks on either end" "two combination locks on both ends" <S> That's 4 locks you have? <S> No, so it can't be those. <S> one on either end Colloquial, but <S> OK at a push. <S> one on both ends <S> Just clumsy. <S> The one just can't reach to both ends at the same time, it needs its partner at the other end. <S> Further explanation as to <S> why it ought to be 'each' not 'either' in this scenario <S> I have a watch chain & one watch. <S> The watch can go on either end of the chain. <S> No confusion, the choice is right there, either end, pick which end you attach it to. <S> I now have a watch chain & 2 watches. <S> I can attach them to each end. <S> I cannot attach them to either end, because as soon as I've attached the first one, I have no choice then but to attach the other one to the other end. <S> I can no longer attach it to either end. <S> Also, the football example, of how to really fall over when getting this wrong… <S> "In football they have two goalkeepers, at either end… <S> " Sorry, no they don't. <S> The goalkeepers don't get to choose which end they stand at, otherwise they could both choose the same end. <S> They must stand one at each end. <S> BTW, I realise this is extreme pedantry, & that you could easily get away with most of the alternative suggestions, but I'm just trying to nail this one down logically <A> Numbers 1 and 3 are OK. <S> At may be preferred by some to designate the location (end). <S> On tends to suggest a surface. <S> Either has more than one meaning, including: 2 each of two <S> The offices on either side were empty. <S> There's a door at either end of the corridor. <S> Both also has more than one meaning: 1 ... ‘the two’ or ‘the one as well as the other’ <S> Published examples: Dual-swivel hose fittings. <S> Most we tested have one at both ends of the hose to help prevent kinks. <S> Date <S> 2007 <S> (Mar)Publication information Vol. <S> 72, Iss. <S> 3; pg. <S> 40, 3 pgsTitle <S> WET/DRY VACS: <S> For big jobs, it's in the bagSource <S> Consumer Reports <S> (speech) <S> Ms-CUTCHER: <S> We both saw him straddling the body basically, a foot on both sides of Trayvon's body and his hands pressed on his back. <S> Date 2012 <S> (120325)Title <S> Latest on the shooting of Trayvon MartinSource NBC_Dateline <S> So what does that all mean? <S> Advocates on both sides of the case took Kennedy's statements as a signal that he and the court will rule in their favor. <S> Date 2012 (120328)Publication information A-SECTION; <S> Pg. <S> A01Title <S> Watchers on both sides play guessing gameAuthor <S> David A. Fahrenthold;N.C. AizenmanSource Washington Post <A> "Both" is also a determiner; it also means the one and the other or each of two. <S> 1- <S> My travel bag has two combination locks, one at either end. <S> The sentence sounds natural and grammatically correct. <S> There are two locks together. <S> We can rephrase this sentence as "My travel bag has a combination lock at either end". <S> It also means a total number of two locks. <S> 2- "My travel bag has two combination locks at either end". <S> It's not correct if you mean two locks altogether. <S> This sentence indicates a total of four locks. <S> 3- "My travel bag has two combination locks, one at both ends" (each of two sides). <S> This sentence is also grammatically correct; it means a total number of two locks. <S> 4- <S> "My travel bag has two combination locks at both ends". <S> It's not correct as it means that there are four locks; two at one end and two at the other end. <S> I think if we use either or both in a right way, it makes no difference. <S> (PLS REFER TO THE FREE DICTIONARY FOR "EITHER" AND "BOTH").
| You can't have 'one on both ends' you need two, unless you can bend the laws of physics.. "Either" is a determiner; it means "each of two".
|
The meaning of "As if on cue" Can you explain to me what do " as if on cue " and whole sentences mean please? As if on cue, research from the Duke Cancer Institute, publishing in the journal Urology, revealed that classical music can indeed diminish anxiety. And as if on cue, hundreds of migrants swarmed to a plush London suburb for their share of the spoils The Oxford Online Dictionary says that the meaning of "on cue" is "at exactly the moment you expect or that is appropriate" but all example sentences which are related to on cue begin with "as if". So when I put together these four words, it seems to have the meaning of "as if planned to happen on a right or same time"..and this meaning fits the second sentence but doesn't fit the first one.. In the first sentence it adds a meaning like, for me, it seems like everybody arranged a time to get and meet there.. Can I say After I got out from the airport, I got to the train station and as if on cue the train was due to move on(I mean it moved on just after I had gotten on it).So I didnt waste any time by waiting. <Q> Inherited from the theatre/film industry <S> A cue is any signal that an actor should begin something, walk on, say the next line etc. <S> He begins that 'on his cue' or 'on cue' "An off-stage door slam was his cue to enter." <S> See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cue <S> So 'as if on cue' relates to the seemingly perfect timing of the event, as though someone has designed it to be that way, in advance. <A> I don't see why your derived meaning (which seems correct) cannot be applied to the first sentence. <S> Of course, without further context, this is always a guessing game, but let's add some context and replace as if on cue by as if it had been planned to happen at this exact moment : <S> I was engaged in an ongoing discussion about the effect of music on anxiety with some of my friends. <S> As if it had been planned to happen at this exact moment, research from the Duke Cancer Institute, publishing in the journal Urology, revealed that classical music can indeed diminish anxiety. <S> It is highly unlikely that the folks over at the Duke Cancer Institute had actually planned their research (and the publishing of it) to coincide with my discussion on the subject. <S> However, their timing did so neatly coincide with my discussion <S> , that it seemed as if someone had indeed planned it! <A> I can't agree with the definition as presented. <S> At least, that definition should be marked as a metaphor. <S> A cue is a prompt, a signal for action. <S> "At the exact moment that it is expected or that it is appropriate" seems to be a good definition for "as if on cue". <S> When the precise timing of events is intentional, those events probably did happen on cue. <S> When the precise timing is accidental, those events happen as if on cue. <S> I take that phrase in the first sentence to mean "as if the timing had been planned". <S> In the second, I take it to mean "as if in response to an arranged signal". <S> These two different interpretations of the one phrase make sense, given that a cue is an arranged signal used to manage a planned timing. <S> I wouldn't say that the train moved as if on cue. <S> The train should move on cue. <S> If it moves at an established time, it moves on cue. <S> If it moves in response to a signal from the station, it moves on cue. <S> The "as if" doesn't makes sense, because some cue is bound to be literal. <S> Even when the train misses its cue, the cue remains literal. <S> I might say "As if cued by my arrival, the train was ready to depart." <S> The train's departure is cued, but not by my arrival. <S> However, it might seem to be cued by my arrival if I find the timing to be convenient. <S> On the other hand, I might say "on cue" when I mean "as if on cue" if no literal cue makes sense in context. <S> Jan and I were in the kitchen, talking about her clumsy new boyfriend. <S> Right on cue, we hear Steve crash into the coffee table. <S> This "right on cue" is clearly a metaphor. <S> There is no literal cue. <S> This is just an example of accidentally perfect timing. <A> It means something like apropos ; on cue serves as an idiom meaning it happened on the right time. <S> on cue <S> - as if planned to happen exactly at that moment <S> I searched the first sentence and found out Forbe's article. <S> There, it says that the research just followed one research. <A> The first sentence is a pun. <S> An orchestra performs complex music, and individual musicians will wait for their cue to begin. <S> Since the research involved orchestral music, the author used "As if on cue" as a joke. <S> There is no real or implied "cue" for the research. <S> Your sentence about the train is correct, but the phrase "as if on cue" is unusual enough to sound poetic. <S> If something is happening on cue, the entire scene is dramatic and cool. <S> For example: "After getting the job I felt unstoppable. <S> I strode into the subway like I owned it, and the train pulled up and opened its doors for me as if on cue. <S> I didn't even have to break stride. <S> This was my day." <A> Others have given background and a bit of explanantion about the phrase, but not really a clear answer to your question. <S> The answer is no: your proposed sentence doesn't work, the phrase "as if on cue" needs to be followed by an action that appears coordinated but wasn't, "due to move" is not an action of any kind. <S> You are saying that the train was scheduled (due) to move if that is taken as an action, it is one that was done hours at the least prior to your arrival at the train station, possibly years. <S> After I got out from the airport, I went straight to the train station and boarded the train to X, which as if on cue, began to move as I sat down. <S> Note that this would work better with a subway station, where it could start moving as you step through the door.
| The phrase "on cue" means in response to a prompt, especially in timely response to a prompt.
|
How to say that you are a teacher because of your education? Imagine you're being interviewed for a job and you're asked to tell about your profession. You're a professional, let us say a teacher, because you studied in a pedagogical university. What is the right way to say that? I'm a teacher by/according to/based on my education. What preposition should be used while using exactly this word order? Thanks! <Q> I'm a teacher because that's my job. <S> That's precisely what makes me a teacher, I do it for a living [or for free, but nevertheless I do it daily/weekly etc]. <S> I became a teacher through education & specific teacher-training <S> So, I'm not a teacher because of my education, although I couldn't have become one without it. <S> I'm a teacher because of my career-choice, enabled by the relevant education & training. <S> Had I gone from teacher-training college to a job in gardening & home improvement <S> , I would be fully-qualified as teacher <S> but I would not be a teacher. <A> I would suggest one of two choices. <S> The first option, as suggested by Jim Reynolds in the comments above, would be: <S> I'm a teacher by training. <S> This is the standard idiomatic way to say that you've studied (and, typically, by implication, completed your studies) for a particular occupation. <S> You could substitute "by education" for "by training" here, if you really wanted to, but at least to my ear, that doesn't sound quite as common or natural. <S> (I decided to check my intuition with Google Ngram Viewer, and it seems to generally agree , ranking " X by training" above " <S> X by education" over the last 100 years or so. <S> Interestingly, refining the query shows that the this idiom seems to be most often applied to a few specific professions, the top two being "a lawyer by training" and "an engineer by training". <S> As these are both well-known examples of professions where a formal degree is an essential and often legally mandated requirement for practice, this is perhaps not so surprising.) <S> As Jim points out, using this expression can sometimes carry the implication that you have not actually yet worked, or do not currently work, in the profession that you studied for. <S> This does not really have anything specifically to do with the idiom as such — it's simply that, with the explicit qualifier "by training" included in the sentence, the reader may assume that the qualifier is actually necessary, and that therefore, by implication, you are not (currently) a teacher in some other sense. <S> Generally, you don't need to worry about this too much, since the intended meaning should be clear from context, anyway. <S> That said, if you wish to make it absolutely unambiguous that the reason you're stressing the "by training" part is to put emphasis on your formal degree in the subject, I would suggest simply rewriting the sentence to explicitly say so: I have a degree in pedagogy. <S> Of course, you should substitute the specific official (English) name of the degree you have, and perhaps include the name of the institute you received it from <A> To address the phrases you asked about, any of the following is grammatically correct: <S> "I am a teacher by education" <S> "I am a teacher according to my education" " <S> According to my education I am a teacher" (although "according to my qualifications" would be more on the mark) <S> "I am a teacher based on my education <S> " "Based on my education I am a teacher" You can put a comma before "I" in each of the cases with reversed order. <S> Whether these statements are true or not depends on your definition of "teacher" as discussed in other answers. <S> I think all of these cases automatically imply that by "being a teacher" you must mean "being qualified as a teacher", not necessarily that you currently work in the profession or ever did. <S> But a pedant or an actual practising teacher might well disagree with that meaning. <S> Because it's unclear whether they can be true, i.e. that education alone makes you a teacher <S> , I don't think any of them is a particularly natural way of putting it. <S> To my ear "I'm a teacher by education" is best of these options. <S> The phrasing directly suggests that a "teacher by education" is a different thing from "a teacher". <S> Next best is something like, "According to my education, I am a teacher, but in fact I never worked as one". <S> In your circumstances it would be more natural in English to say "I trained as a teacher", since this avoids the whole business of the slightly unusual (and arguably inaccurate) meaning of "teacher". <S> Or specifically in a job interview, say, "I qualified as a teacher" to emphasise that you do have all the certificates! <S> It's also a bit more natural to talk about "training as a teacher" (or doctor, or philosopher, or brick-layer) rather than "being educated as a teacher", because "training" implies a bit more active use of skills. <S> You might say "I was educated in medicine", and "I trained as a doctor". <S> For teaching, this results in the confusing phrase, "I was educated in education", probably best avoided :-) <A> I'm a teacher by virtue of my education. <A> I think the simplest way to express this is to say, "I studied teaching, but now I am a/an x " or "I have a degree is in 'x', but now I work in 'y'. <S> " <S> For example, "I have a degree in teaching, but I work in IT."-or-"I studied literature, but now I work in merchandising." <A> If you say that you are a teacher because of your education, that means that you didn't want to become a teacher, otherwise you'd say you became a teacher because it was your dream, or it seemed like a sensible career choice or whatever. <S> Since you got an education which left you no alternative but to become a teacher even though you didn't want to, that then has unfortunate implications. <S> Where you forced into the study? <S> Didn't you think things through before you started? <S> Were you misinformed about the career opportunities granted by the study? <S> Is this really what you want to say?
| "I am a teacher by my education"
|
In the network or on the network In my conclusion of my experiments I want to say that "some event occurs everywhere in the network". The network refers to computer networks but not necessarily Internet here. I know that "on the Internet" is a set phrase, but I feel that "some event occurs everywhere on the network" sounds wired as I think the events are occurs "insides the network". What proposition should I use in my sentence? Any suggestion will be appreciated. <Q> There is a choice of prepositions here. <S> Normally, you would say that a computer is on a network or on the Internet. <S> However, if you are a network engineer, you might be responsible for administering a firewall, in which case you might be concerned about the distinction between inside the network and outside the network that you operate. <S> A worm might propagate on/over/through a computer network. <S> In US-style healthcare, a health insurance plan will cover your treatment only if you go to certain doctors or hospitals. <S> In that case, the plan will speak of in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage . <A> It is the same as with a telephone: <S> I was talking on the telephone. <S> Basically you are connected to/interacting with a communications medium. <S> Refer to this definition of on sense 16b: <S> 16b) through the medium of ⇒ <S> "on the phone, to act on TV" (AmE disclaimer, this may vary by locale.) <A> throughout the network is another idiomatic possibility. <A> Both are meaningful, and they shape the way you think of "the network." <S> If something is "on" a network, it is not part of the network itself. <S> If something is "in" a network, it is part of it. <S> We, as humans, use both wordings. <S> "On the network" isolates the network from what you are talking about. <S> This makes the network simpler, and has it interacting with the outside environment. <S> This wording would be used along side concrete statements about network behavior such as "guaranteed end-to-end latency of less than 11us" or "100Mb/s packet switching. <S> " <S> "In the network" embeds what you're talking about in to the network. <S> This makes the network much more complicated, because it has to describe all of the computers connected to it as well. <S> However, there are times where the effect you are describing is found in the interactions between computers. <S> In this case, it is easier to show the interactions if you just treat it as one monolithic body. <S> As an example, there is a rule of thumb that you should avoid using both TCP/IP and UDP packets in the same game engine. <S> You do this because TCP/IP will try to throttle its bandwidth as high as it can go, and disrupt the UDP packets in unpredictable ways. <S> In this case, you note that I talk about the TCP/IP socket, the UDP socket, the computer, and the network all in one big group. <S> In this case, "in the network" is probably the right term. <A> Simply put, a person is 'on the network' while a computer or resource is 'in the network'. <S> "a client system processes information pertinent to a single user on the network while the server processes data relevant to every client in the network"
| In a computer network, I would say: Some event occurs everywhere on the network.
|
what's the difference between "alliance" and "coalition"? The two words alliance and coalition seem to have the same general meaning: a group of political partners with similar aims Is there a difference between them? Are there clear-cut rules as to when one would be preferred over the other? Or are pretty much interchangeable in just about any context? <Q> The two terms are closely related, and even interchangeable in many cases. <S> However, the two words focus on different things. <S> Alliance is more about mutual interests or benefit, while coalition is more about doing some action. <S> The use of both terms is not limited to the political context. <S> They can be used in other contexts: military, financial, commercial, technological, and so on. <S> Having said that, I agree that coalition is used most often in the political context for "a temporary alliance of political parties forming a government or of states" (see below). <S> Here are their definitions, according to Oxford dictionary: <S> alliance <S> (noun) 1. <S> A union or association formed for mutual benefit, especially between countries or organizations. <S> 1.1 <S> A relationship based on similarity of interests, nature, or qualities. <S> 1.2 <S> A state of being joined or associated. <S> coalition (noun) <S> A temporary alliance for combined action, especially of political parties forming a government. <S> Here is a quote from Get Them On Your Side by Samuel B. Bacharach (chapter 5): <S> Formally defined, a coalition is a politically mobilized collection of interest groups or individuals committed to achieving a common outcome (i.e., resistance or change). <S> Through political mobilization you create a group that has some sense of shared goals and/or a sense of connected interests. <S> A coalition is an alliance for joint action. <S> In short, a coalition is an alliance for joint action . <A> Alliance is like Atlantic Alliance aka NATO where every member has an equal vote. <S> Coalition implies willingness to join a cause such as the coalition forces that invaded Iraq. <S> Equality among members is not there. <S> It is led by a strong leader others willingly following. <S> Ultimately the words are used interchangeably in common parlance. <S> As one of the previous answers stated coalition is temporary while alliance is long term. <A> An alliance is more loose than a coalition. <S> For example, if The U.S. forms a coalition with India, China, South Korea, and Japan, whatever they do, they all take the blame. <S> If the U.S. forms an alliance with Britain, France, and Germany, if Germany attacks someone, the U.S. is not responsible to as great an extent. <S> Alliances are more for defense, whereas coalition are more for joint attack. <S> But it really doesn't matter in a casual context, no one is going to blame you for saying alliance when it should be coalition.
| A coalition is a group that are identified with the same action.
|
when I should use "on" or "at"? I was at doctor office few days back and there was lady who was trying to come in the office.But couldn't as the door was locked. I told the nurse there that "somebody is on the door" and she replied back saying you mean "somebody is at the door ?". Which one is correct ? <Q> There are several definitions of On. <S> Or sometimes being physically atop of something. <S> "I am standing on the table. <S> " At is used when someone is somewhere, a location. <S> "I am at the mall." <S> "I am at the corner of the street." <A> 'on the door' is wrong in 99% of the cases. <S> Like someone else said, "on the door" is only correct should you want to express that someone is physically standing on top of the door. <S> And while JaththeGod's answer is correct, there are cases where you cannot use logic: <S> "on the phone" for instance. <S> Doesn't mean you're part of something, but it's still used that way. <A> A bouncer, security guard or doorman is said to be 'on the door', meaning in charge of the admission of those people who are at the door.
| 'at the door' is always correct when referring to someone knocking/using the doorbell. But On would generally be used if you're a part of something such as "I am on the team."
|
what is the meaning of "have" in the phrase "have had"? I see this sentence online. "A video game reviewer has had it with threats of sexual violence contained in online messages from young boys, so she's decided to do something about it." And I cannot figure out the meaning of the first clause. <Q> It is a common way of saying "having enough of something/someone" or "not willing to tolerate something/someone anymore". <S> Re-phrasing your example: A video game reviewer is not willing to tolerate threats of sexual violence contained in online messages from young boys anymore, so she's decided to do something about it. <A> The key part of the phrase is "had it", in the sense of 'had enough of [something]' It is usually followed by 'with'. <S> Literally, 'had enough' would suggest that you have precisely sufficient of whatever it was you wanted - but <S> in practise it signifies you actually have more than enough <S> & you are not happy about it. <S> It is probably something you never wanted at all. <S> Your patience is at an end. <S> You will no longer tolerate this. <S> It is more likely to refer to behaviour of someone/thing else rather than, for instance, ice cream. <S> You can have had enough ice cream, but you'd be unlikely to have had it with ice cream 1 - unless you never wanted to see any ever again. <S> Someone is upsetting you, sending threats, then you've had it with this behaviour & are going to do something about it. <S> 1 <S> This is, of course, completely different in meaning from "Do you like apple pie?" <S> " "Yes, it's lovely, I've had it with ice cream" <A> In "has had" used here, "has" is used as the helping verb while "had" is the past participle(3rd form) of "have". <S> The sentence is in present perfect tense. <S> This means that the game reviewer got enough threats that she had to do something about them(the threats).
| You have 'had enough of it' or more simply, 'had it' with this [something].
|
How do I describe a past state that was interrupted? If we speak about a long term passive situation which was interrupted, is the tense correct? The box has been contained toys. (Now it is empty) Or The box contained toys. (Now it is empty) My doubt is about the passiveness of that action and emphasis on the process. <Q> If you were using active voice, it would be better to say The box used to contain toys. <S> However, you're asking about passive voice. <S> In passive voice, the subject (the do-er) trades places with the object. "A car hit me" (active) vs. " <S> I was hit by a car" (passive). <S> If we start with the basic past-tense sentence above and make it passive, we get: <S> Toys used to be contained by the box. <S> or Toys used to be contained in the box. <S> An alternative would be the passive past perfect (past perfect since the box is now empty): <S> Toys had been contained by/in the box. <S> Passive voice has its uses, but in this case, I'd suggest going with the active voice. <S> Both "Toys used to be contained by/in the box" and "Toys had been contained by/in the box" are rather awkward sentences. <A> As has been pointed out already (with an explanation), the best answer would be: <S> In your sentence 2: The box contained toys. <S> (Now it is empty) <S> If you have to talk about a single toy, use "a" toy. <S> When you have more than one toy, use plural - toys. <S> This sentence isn't ungrammatical, but it doesn't really convey the "interrupted action" you were aiming to stress on. <S> That is best described by the "used to" construct. <S> As for your sentence 1, it is ungrammatical. <S> Ideally, you would use "has been" in cases like: <S> The situation has been contained. <A> Contain is a transitive verb used for saying that something holds or has something else inside it. <S> The box is treated as a "doer", which does the action of holding, and the object that receives the action is "toys". <S> So the correct sentence is "The box contained toys, but now it's empty".
| The box used to contain toys. When the doer is the subject, the sentence is in the active voice.
|
The usage of "to try out" and "to try" I would like to ask on the usage of the verbs "to try out " and " to try " For example, when we say : I am going to try a diet out this month and I hope it is going work to help me lose 10 kg in a month. I am going to try a diet this month and I hope it is going work to help me lose 10 kg in a month. Is there a difference in terms of meaning.I heard there could be regional differences in usage as well, is it true ( I mean maybe it is ok in the US but it is not common in the UK) When I look up to for "to try out" on an online dictonary , it says "to test or use somebody/something in order to see how good or effective they are". So I noticed that we need a thing to try it out.But ,I reckon, another verb follows after only "try" like -I am going to try to run 10 miles today. I would like to ask you to check my other sentences if they are ok in this sense. 1) Hey, have you heard? Famous chain kebab shop has launched a new branch in the town. The restaurant itself is pretty big and the prices are 50% off for today. So I am going to try it (out) today . 2) I am planning on buying new stuff for learning English. I found out there is a video series which is provided by Oxford University. But before I buy the whole DVD set, I am going to try out the demo first in order to see if they are useful for me. 3) I will try out a new antivirus software as the last one I bought was not able to deter viruses from infecting my computer. 4) I have bought new chemical-proof work clothes so the workers can be protected from hazardous materials in the factory. Have every worker try them out, and make a report if it works for us. 5) I will try out the LG3 smart phone to see if it is worth buying. 6) I will try to use this grammar book for my dissertation this time because the old one is pretty out-of-date. ( I am aware of there is another thread on this topic on the site.I have written down these questions after I had read it, because it doesn't answer my questions sufficiently. This question is not dublicate, more like extended version of available one) Thanks in advance! <Q> The verb to try X often has two partially overlapping senses. <S> From dictionary.com ... <S> 1 <S> : to attempt to do or accomplish (sense #1 in link) 2: to endeavor to evaluate by experiment or experience (sense #3 in link) <S> In something like "I'm trying a new diet , either or both senses might apply (I'm going to attempt to follow this diet, and/or evaluate it). <S> But for most native speakers, to try out X (or to try X out - both sequences are equally valid) would normally be understood to convey only the second (evaluate) sense. <S> There's also to try X on (where X is an item of clothing, or something you can put on [yourself] ), which always has sense #2 above (you're performing the "trial" in order to evaluate whether the clothing fits , for example). <S> Except in the idiomatic special case... <S> 3: <S> to try it on <S> This (chiefly BrE usage, sense #18 in the link above) can either mean to put on airs (adopt a haughty demeanour), or to be forward or presumptuous (especially, to make unwanted sexual advances). <S> I'd say these are both variants of the first definition given above. <A> You have to look at what comes after the "try": <S> try + <S> noun = test <S> : Shall we try the new restaurant? <S> try out + <S> noun = test <S> : I want to try out the new Mercedes. <S> try out + for = attempt: I'm going to try out for the football team. <S> try + on = test clothing/accessories <S> : Try on this perfume and see if you like it. <S> try + <S> infinitive = attempt: <S> Let's try to get seats close to the stage. <S> Check your question to see how I edited your example questions. <A> All of your examples work both with and without the word "out," except for #6 in which you correctly left it out. <S> The phrase "try out" is strongly associated with judgment. <S> It might be a helpful memory device to know that when someone wants to be recruited onto a sports team, they "try out for the team. <S> " When recruitment is held as an event where multiple candidates are trying out, the event is often called a "tryout" or "tryouts," as in "Joe is going to the football tryouts after school." <A> "try out" implies that there is no question of your ability to do a thing, only that choosing to continue doing/using a thing will depend on your enjoyment of the results of your trial. <S> Try can apply to the subject or the object of a sentence. <S> Try out(as a verb) only applies to the object.
| In this case, "try" and "try out" both mean "to test/examine".
|
Do kidnappers only kidnap kids? As I read at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kidnap , the etymology for kidnap is kid (“child”) + nap (“nab, grab”) Can an adult person also be kidnapped? Would it sound funny to say so? The definition mentions person , not child , but I'm not sure. (In my language we have a borrowed word kidnapper , but I only heard it referring to someone who abducted children or house pets, probably because the users of the word recognised the kid stem in it.) <Q> It is normal to use "kidnap" in a non-child context. <S> It does not sound strange at all, and it is actually the correct legal term for the crime , which is not specific to children: <S> The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person... <S> "Abducting" is a common synonym for "kidnapping". <S> Sometimes the "kid" in "kidnapping" is replaced by some other noun, as in " dognapping ". <S> This is often used seriously (as dognapping is) but may be slightly humorous in more bizarre or trivial circumstances, like pignapping or lappynapping . <A> Yes. <S> Though the etymology suggests that it is derived from "Kid"(might be because initially only kids were kidnapped), it is generally used to refer the act of taking someone illegally by force. <S> If it sounds wrong to you, you could use synonyms like "Abduct" or "held captive" or "held in captivity". <A> The Wiktionary definition states: (transitive) <S> To seize and detain a person unlawfully; sometimes for ransom. <S> Source: <S> Definition of “kidnap” on wiktionary.org <S> Despite the origins, the word is commonly used in cases where adults are taken. <S> We can all hear “kid” when we say “kidnap” though, so sometimes people will make formations based on the “ -nap ” suffix. <S> Examples include “ dognap ”, and “ catnap ”, ( <S> note that the latter might confuse people as the term is more common as a noun meaning a “brief, light sleep” or as an intransitive verb meaning “to take a catnap”). <S> You can also form verbs like this on the fly: <S> Who cup-napped my favorite mug?
| The formal term is properly “kidnap” in the case of any person being abducted.
|
Can I ask 'what your name is?' Can I ask: 'What your name is?' instead of, 'What is your name?' Is #1 grammatically correct? <Q> We cannot say: What your name is? <S> Let's see why. <S> Maybe if we don't hear what somebody said, we can use an echo question: <S> Your name is what ? <S> Another name for this type of question is an in situ question. <S> We use the word what to show which word we didn't hear, or which word we don't know. <S> This is a question, but it uses the same word order as a normal sentence: <S> Your name is Bob. <S> We usually don't make questions like this. <S> We usually move the <S> wh- <S> word to the front of the sentence when we make a question: <S> What blah blah blah blah? <S> Who blah blah blah blah? <S> Where blah blah blah blah? <S> If the wh- <S> word needs to move to the front of the question, then we also need to change the order of some other words. <S> We change the subject and the auxiliary verb. <S> Let's look at the in situ question again to see what the subject and the auxiliary verb are: <S> Your name is XXXX? <S> The auxiliary verb here is is . <S> The verb BE <S> is always an auxiliary verb, even when it is the only verb. <S> In normal, canonical, sentences the subject is the noun phrase before the auxiliary. <S> Here the subject is your name . <S> If we want to make the question with what at the beginning of the question, then we need to invert, to change round, the subject and the auxiliary like this: What [is] [your name]? <S> What is your name? <S> If we do not invert the subject and the auxiliary, the sentence is ungrammatical: <S> * What your name is? <S> (wrong). <S> Note that the order of the phrases in the sentence is: What (complement), is (verb), your name (subject) <S> Hope <S> this is helpful! <A> What is your name? <S> In my opinion, it's breaking grammar rule of interrogative sentences, because we have to put verb 'to be' (is, am, are) after the interrogative words (What, Who, Where, How, etc.) <A> No matter what tense is in question, the form of English question is always the same: AUXILIARY VERB + NOUN + <S> MAIN VERB(does <S> + she + work) <S> Question words come at the beginning and the DO NOT change the form of the question or its word order. <S> When there is a verb BE which usually consists of one word, then we move it to the place of auxiliary verb and the form then looks VERB + NOUN(is <S> + she <S> ) OK/fine/nice/happy/... <S> So, "what your name is" is incorrect because its form is "question word + noun + main verb" To respect the rule you have to ask what + is <S> + your + name <S> Now, the construction "what your name is" exists and we use it in the indirect question. <S> For example, Can you tell me... <S> I wonder... <S> May I know... <S> I would like to know... <S> *...what your name is*? <A> What your name is? <S> is ungrammatical. <S> You must say What is your name? <S> The reason you cannot say What your name is? <S> is because that word order makes the listener hear <S> what as a relative pronoun. <S> A listener hears What your name is? <S> not as a question, but as a fragment of a sentence like this one: <S> I know what your name is. <S> In this sentence, the word <S> what functions as a relative pronoun: it makes what your name is into the object of know . <S> The interrogative pronouns <S> what, who, whom, whose, what, where, and when can also function as relative pronouns. <S> The word order tells the listener which role the interrogative/relative pronoun is playing. <S> Here are some examples to illustrate how the word order changes (or stays the same) when you switch between declarative statement, relative clause, and question: <S> Your name is Jamius. <S> / <S> I know what your name is. <S> / <S> What is your name? <S> Terry is ready now. <S> / <S> I see who is ready now. <S> / <S> Who is ready now? <S> In line 1, the word order reverses to form a question, because what stands for a subject-complement or object. <S> In line 2, the word order is the same in all three sentences because who stands for the subject. <S> Whose name is Jamius? <S> In line 3, the question's word order is the same as the declarative sentence, since Whose name corresponds to the subject of the declarative sentence. <S> There are some other important things to know about English questions, like what to do with auxiliary verbs, the need to add an auxiliary verb (usually do ) when the verb is anything other than be , and the fact that you can use the word order of a declarative sentence to make a question express surprise or emphasis (for example, Your name is WHAT?? ). <S> But the above explains why What your name is? <S> doesn't work as a question in English.
| I don't think it's grammatically correct, because I have never seen anybody to ask someone's name by saying like this.
|
Generic headline term for "first three quarters of the year" Suppose I have a headline to translate: ZZZ sales up 20% in the first three quarters of 2014 Is there a generic and shorter way to indicate the same? I know of Q3 2014 , but that would mean "in the third quarter" only, not "in the first nine months of the year". <Q> I would prefer your original " first three quarters of 2014 " as it is unambiguous. <S> However, these alternatives may be acceptable: ZZZ sales up 20% in Q1-Q3 2014 ZZZ sales up 20% in 2014, quarters 1-3 <A> What's wrong with "in the first nine months of 2014" (like you say in your question)? <S> That would work. <S> Also, you could use "through September of 2014" if you wanted to avoid quarter for some reason. <S> However, the word quarter is often used in financial circles (in phrases like third quarter earnings or second quarter sales , so it might be best to leave it as quarters in English. <A> "ZZZ Sales up YTD" (year-to-date) is a common way of handling that scenario. <S> The assumption is that the piece is being published in Q4, and the trend seen over the first three quarters has not reversed. <S> Reasonable assumption, since a headline trumpeting an increase would be very misleading if there had been a sudden slump. <A> There is a slight difference between these two phrases: ZZZ 2014 YTD sales are up through Q3 and <S> ZZZ sales are up in the first three quarters of 2014 <S> The difference is that in the first, the total sales for the first three quarters is compared to the previous year's first three quarters in total. <S> The second is unclear, but suggests that you may be comparing each quarter by quarter and have an increase in each of them separately (Q1 2014 vs Q1 2013, Q2 2014 vs Q2 2013, and Q3 2014 vs Q3 2013). <S> Include YTD as well as the specific end point ( through Q3 ) to be the most clear if that's what you mean. <S> Also, if you mean Fiscal Year not Calendar Year, it is slightly more clear to specify that: ZZZ FY 2014 sales are up through Q3 <S> Finally, if you want a more nice 'reading' sentence, I would put it like this: <S> ZZZ sales are up for the fiscal year 2014 through the third quarter. <S> or Through the third quarter of fiscal year 2014, ZZZ sales are up. <S> In both cases "Through" makes it clear that you mean the entire period and not each period separately.
| If you specifically mean quarter by quarter, on the other hand, then say ZZZ sales are up for each of the first three quarters of 2014 or something similar to that.
|
beat it (the title of the famous Michael Jackson song) -- does that mean "to run away"? Does beat it in the title mean run away as fast as you can because you don't want to get into trouble ? <Q> "Beat it" in the context of the song means "go away". <S> It is something one person would tell another to do, not something you would say you were going to do yourself. <S> You could say, "The cops (police) are coming, (you) beat it!" <S> Or "The cops are coming, let's beat it!" <S> but you usually would not say "The cops are coming, I'm going to beat it." <A> For example You can say this thing to your juniors in the college like A. Hey, beat it ! <S> Or I will beat you up. <S> It's like a bit rude version of 'get lost'. <S> So obvisouly you can't use this thing on your elders, parents, teachers etc. <S> But you can use this phrase on people who you can afford to be rude with. <A> Yes. <S> I believe it means something like "get yourself out of this situation", "get out of this life", "leave". <S> I seem to remember that the song is about gangs, violence, street life and the like. <A> As to the etymology of "Beat it!" <S> I assume that it is from the military sector, to beat the signal for retreat on the drum or drums. <S> We still have the expression "to beat a (hasty) retreat", and I think "Beat it!" <S> is a shortened version of this expression.
| Beat it - It's a slang for 'run away or go away' or 'ask somene to run away or go away'
|
When do we pronounce Z as "zed" and not "zi:" When we learned the ABC song and English alphabet, we pronounced Z as [zed] . But in the practical usage, I never heard people say [zed] , but they always say [zi:] So when shall we say [zed] ? Or such pronunciation is totally archaic and not used in the modern English. <Q> Very simple. <S> Br Eng is 'zed'. <S> Am Eng is 'zee'. <S> Martha added the very salient point that this is only when spelling words or reciting the alphabet, never in the pronunciation of a word itself…. <S> though there is a hint of it in a word like zebra, where Am E will say zeebra, rather than the Br E zebra. <S> Ref: OALD <A> You never pronounce Z as "Zed". <S> In American English, the pronunciation is the same, but the letter is called "Zee", not "Zed". <S> Thus, the only context where you're likely to hear "Zed" is if you're reciting the alphabet or spelling a word that contains a 'z' in British English. <A> Zed is the pronunciation of the letter Z in the UK and some other Commonwealth countries (if not all of them), also the letter is still pronounced zed in abbreviations, and when spelling a word out in letters. <S> I'm British (Scottish) and would never pronounce the letter Z as zee, under any circumstances. <S> Zee is the name of the letter Z in the US, and it's the same pronunciation in abbreviations and when spelling a word out in letters. <S> So both are correct! <S> As for LZ, you might find a pilot is the best person to ask. <S> The answer might be different in your particular example if there is an internationally accepted pronunciation in the aviation industry. <S> I'd like to think all pilots speak the same lingo! <S> There's a distinct possibility that pilots might use the ICOA Spelling Alphabet, sometimes called the NATO Alphabet, to pronounce abbreviations - so that would be Lima Zulu. <S> I am not a pilot, but I did find this link . <S> Another possibility is that pilots would say "landing zone" in full, and perhaps might not abbreviate it. <S> In the UK, the police use the ICOA/NATO alphabet for abbreviations, and spelling out car number plates.
| In British English, the name of the letter is "Zed", but it's pronounced /z/.
|
What's the word for "to wish bad for someone"? Example sentence - He wished bad for his girlfriend because she ditched him. I know one word which is curse ( a solemn utterance intended to invoke a supernatural power to inflict harm or punishment on someone or something ) from searching Google, but it sounds too intense and can't be used in routine. <Q> You can use wish ill upon as in I would never wish ill upon anyone, but I hope never to see her again. <S> The following are informal If the two parties are in the same place, then one of them can give the other the evil eye. <S> A slightly cruder, less formal expression is giving someone a stink eye . <S> The recipient of the stink eye doesn't necessarily need to know it - it can be given behind their back. <S> If you can't actually see the other person, you'll have to settle for sending them bad vibes. <S> If you hope someone has bad luck, you could wish bad juju on someone. <S> If you have a superstition that some small action on your part could bring them bad luck, you can jinx them by performing that act. <S> (West Coast AmE) <A> I just googled "curse synonym" and here's a cleaned-up version what I got: <S> curse noun a solemn utterance intended to invoke a supernatural power to inflict harm or punishment on someone or something. <S> "she'd put a curse on him" synonyms: malediction, hex, jinx; a cause of harm or misery. <S> synonyms: <S> evil, blight, scourge, plague, cancer, canker, poison an offensive word or phrase used to express anger or annoyance. <S> "his mouth was spitting vile oaths and curses" synonyms: obscenity, swear word, expletive, oath, profanity, four-letter word, dirty word, blasphemy; verb invoke or use a curse against. <S> "it often seemed as if the family had been cursed" synonyms: put a curse on, put the evil eye on, anathematize, damn, hex, jinx; <S> archaic: <S> imprecate <S> "it seemed as if the family had been cursed" be afflicted with. <S> synonyms: <S> afflict, trouble, plague, bedevil "she was cursed with feelings of inadequacy" utter offensive words in anger or annoyance. <S> "drivers were cursing and sounding their horns" synonyms: swear, blaspheme, take the Lord's name in vain <S> So if you're going to wish for something bad to happen to someone, your best option is probably just going to be 'curse', Sandeep. <S> Usually only witches or other magic practitioners can hex or jinx people, but anyone can curse someone. <S> For example: Damn you to Hell, you whoring harlot! <S> May your hair always have split ends, and may everything you eat taste like feces! <S> I just made that up that curse. <S> I wished for the harlot to be plagued and bedeviled with bad hair and disgusting food. <S> She would have to hear it (or read it in a letter) to know about it, but I'm not a witch and nothing's keeping me from saying it. <A> The verb befall is a good one here. <S> It takes as a subject something (typically bad) that might happen to someone. <S> For some occurrence to befall someone means that the occurrence happened to the person. <S> A common usage: <S> An additional thought: As discussed in the comments, it's common to make explicit the particular horrible fate you would wish upon someone. <S> If you wish to leave it generic, the term horrible fate is reasonably common. <S> For example: He wished some horrible fate upon her. <S> Compared to the statement above with befall, this is more active. <A> If a person is malevolent, he/she wishes to do evil to others.
| He wished some horrible fate would befall her.
|
the dinner vs. dinner (grammar question) From the sitcom Seinfeld (episode The Couch ): KRAMER : (scanning a menu) So, how was the dinner last night? JERRY : Oh, well… KRAMER : Did you enjoy the duck? (Elaine comes over…) Oh, Elaine! I was just asking how dinner went last night. ELAINE : (sitting down) Oh, well… KRAMER : Alright, what did you do to Poppie? ELAINE : Nothing. KRAMER : Well, he's in the hospital. And the cook says you put him there. ELAINE : What's wrong with him? KRAMER : I don't know. I'm gonna go and visit him later. It would be nice if you got him something. (Punches the table to accentuate this and leaves.) JERRY : We should get him something. ELAINE : Yeah. You're right. I don't understand why Kramer first says the dinner , but when he says it a second time, he drops the article. What's the reason behind that? <Q> This is one of the cases where the definite article is optional. <S> How was the dinner? <S> In this case, "the dinner" often refers to the meal as an event. <S> How was dinner? <S> In this case, "dinner" simply refers to an evening meal. <S> You don't provide the context before that conversation; for example, what specifically was occurring at that meal. <S> If it were a special event like a charity dinner or similar, I would expect "the dinner" in some contexts. <S> If it were just a few people eating dinner together, I would not typically expect to hear "the dinner" <A> Although there is no need for 'the' here. <S> Saying: "How was the dinner last night?" or "How was your dinner last night?" <S> or "How was dinner last night?" <S> All seem to make sense and convey the same meaning. <S> So you have a choice there. <A> Please refer to the 'omission of articles. <S> 'I am going to my friend's house for a dinner party tonight. <S> The dinner party which was organized in my friend's house was fabulous. <S> We had a lavish dinner in a hotel. <S> The lavish dinner was expensive. <S> A dinner party refers to an event more than THE dinner itself. <S> Again THE dinner does not refer to the actual dinner as suchtherefore <S> The dinner is used. <S> THE dinner party which was..... <S> Here THE has been used for two reasons. <S> 1. <S> Because THE is referring to the previous sentence <S> or it is a continuation of a story. <S> 2. <S> Again it is an event and not an actual meal as such. <S> THE lavish dinner... <S> Here lavish is an adjective so an article THe is used before an adjective and not the word dinner as such Come on guys let's have dinner <S> it's already 9. <S> In this case we are not using any article because it is referring to a meal and not an event or party and so on. <S> We don't use articles before the names of any meals. <S> Hope I am right <S> and I hope more that it will help the readers. <S> For more understanding please refer to the 'omission of articles'Typo error if any may please be excused. <S> TIA
| There is a slight difference in meaning between "the dinner" and simply "dinner".
|
22% of (the/all) Americans: using articles and determiners after percentages After a percentage do we use of or of the ? For example: 22% of Americans want Bruce Springsteen to write a new National Anthem. or 22% of the Americans want Bruce Springsteen to write a new National Anthem. also 22% of all Americans want Bruce Springsteen to write a new National Anthem. or 22% of all the Americans want Bruce Springsteen to write a new National Anthem. Are we supposed to say, for example 25% of the times I lie down I fall asleep or 25% of times I lie down I fall asleep ? How can I know when to use % of the and % of ? <Q> A simple rule of thumb is, when you're talking about a noun that has a restrictive clause on it, use 'the'; if you're talking about an unrestricted noun, don't use 'the'. <S> An "unrestricted noun" talks about an entire group; a noun with a restrictive clause talks only about some subset of the group. <S> In your first example, "Americans" is an unrestricted noun: it refers to every American citizen. <S> So, you can leave off "the": <S> 22% of Americans want Bruce Springsteen to write a new national anthem. <S> In your second example, the noun is "times", but it has the restrictive clause "[that] <S> I lie down"; we are not talking about all times, only a specific subset of them. <S> So we want to use 'the' in this case: 25% of the times I lie down <S> , I fall asleep. <S> Of course, having laid out this rule of thumb, I feel compelled to point out some exceptions. <S> First, when you use a noun that is understood to be part of some larger group, even though it's not explicitly stated, you still use 'the': <S> Everybody here is hungry, and most of us have agreed to order pizza, but 40% of the Americans are holding out for cheeseburgers. <S> Secondly, time almost always takes 'the': <S> How often do I fall asleep when I lie down? <S> Oh, about 25% of the time. <S> This is probably because it is implicitly restricted by the conditions in the question, although those conditions are not repeated in the answer. <S> (The use of all , while not strictly incorrect, is redundant and unnecessary.) <A> I basically agree with Hellion, but let me attempt to clarify part of his answer. <S> "Americans" refers to Americans in general, that is, all Americans. <S> " <S> The Americans" can refer to all Americans as a group. <S> Like you could say, "The Americans are a hard-working people". <S> But more often if someone says "the Americans", it's because he's distinguishing a portion of some larger group that are Americans from other members of the group. <S> Like one might say, "Britain, France, and the U.S. sent representatives to a meeting to discuss this issue. <S> The British and French were in favor of the proposal, but the Americans were against it." <S> Here, "the Americans" means that, of the people who were at the meeting, those who were Americans took this position. <S> Similarly in this sentence for "the British" and "the French". <S> This is not limited to nationalities. <S> If you were talking about a group containing both men and women, you might say, "The women wanted to ... but the men wanted ..." Etc. <S> On a different part of the question: "All" is generally not needed in a context like this. <S> It can be used to clarify, if you are switching between talking about some subset and then talking about the whole group again. <S> For example, suppose you took an opinion poll and broke out the results by party affiliation. <S> You might say, "70% of Democrats believe that ... but only 30% of Republicans ..." Now suppose you want to talk about the Democrats, and then about people of all parties combined. <S> You could say, "70% of Democrats believe that ... but 45% of Americans ..." <S> But now it sounds like "Democrats" is the opposite of "Americans". <S> (Maybe it's the opposite of "true Americans", but that's a different subject. :-) ) <S> A reader might reasonably be confused, thinking perhaps you're talking about some group in another country that is called "Democrats", etc. <S> They'd probably figure out what you meant, but if the terms were unfamiliar to the reader -- like if you were talking about factions in ancient Rome or something -- he might not be sure of your meaning. <S> So it is more clear to write, "70% of Democrats believe that ... <S> but 45% of all Americans ..." <A> Typically, "the" is used to clarify the meaning the word that follows it. <S> Replace "Americans" with "French" and the "the" becomes necessary, because "French" could be referring to the people or the language. <S> 22% of the French... <S> vs 22% of French. <S> 22% of French doesn't really make sense, and would need further clarification such as 22% of French speakers.
| Both are correct in your example; the "the" is redundant and may be omitted.
|
The usage of the word pretty is "pretty" confusing I am aware that there are plenty of threads on intensifiers(very, rather, pretty, quite, fairly, etc.), both on this site and on the web, because of their ambiguity in terms of meaning. What I have learned is that their meaning can change depending on which country you are from, which context they are used, or your intonation. So instead of comparing all intensifiers, I decided to make my question more specific. I chose to focus on the word pretty because of its "common" usage. So as we can see, the word pretty has two meanings and unfortunately they are "pretty" opposite. My question is can you tell me, just by taking into account the example sentences below, in which sentences "pretty" means "fairly,", and in which it means "very?" Does "Tom looks pretty tired" always mean "Tom looks a little/fairly tired" ? http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/pretty <Q> It depends on intonation. <S> With a certain, emphatic intonation, Tom looks pretty tired can mean "Tom looks very tired; indeed, his level of tiredness is remarkable." <S> With ordinary intonation, it just means "Tom is moderately tired—tired enough to matter, but his level of tiredness is not especially remarkable." <S> The emphatic intonation that I have in mind drags out each syllable of pretty to an equally long length, about as long as the word tired . <S> The pitches go something like E D C, like "Three blind mice". <S> Of course, there are many other kinds of intonations and emphasis that a person could give the words, suggesting many different kinds of tiredness, and there is no precise, standardized code. <S> You just improvise. <A> In written text it isn't easy to tell whether the intended implication of degree adverbs such as pretty or quite or <S> rather is "very" or "a bit". <S> It can only really be guessed from the context. <S> However, in real speech our interpretation of these adverbs depends on the stress we use. <S> In examples like the Original Poster's, these adverbs are used to modify adjectives. <S> For example: <S> pretty good quite interesting <S> rather long fairly thorough These adverbs have a meaning of "X, but not very, very X". <S> There are two parts of this meaning that we can emphasise: <S> the fact that something is X - or the fact that it's not very <S> , very X . <S> If we stress the adverb, it emphasises that it wasn't very, very good, very interesting, very short, or very thorough: It was pretty good. <S> It was quite interesting. <S> It was rather long. <S> It was fairly thorough. <S> However, if we stress the adjective , then it emphasises that it was , indeed, <S> X: <S> It was pretty good . <S> It was quite interesting . <S> It was rather long . <S> It was fairly thorough . <S> In these examples, because we hear the adjective as stressed, our interpretation of these degree adverbs is something similar to very . <S> Hope <S> this is helpful! <A> I think that the real problem is that English speakers are fond of understatement . <S> When "pretty" is used to mean "very", this is understatement and must, unfortunately, be inferred from context. <S> Fortunately, when a speaker wants it to be clearly understood that they're being very positive, they will typically augment an understated phrase with intensifiers... <S> " <S> He's pretty good-looking." <S> (He is quite attractive.) <S> "He's pretty damn good-looking." <S> (He is extremely attractive.) <S> ...or use it to modify something that's actually a very strong statement in itself. <S> "Did you like the food?" <S> "It was pretty good." <S> (May mean it was just okay, or that it was very good.) <S> "Did you like the food?" <S> "It was pretty awesome." <S> (Definitely means it was very good.) <S> For comparison, here's another understated phrase, with and without this kind of augmentation. <S> "How was your trip?" <S> "Not bad." <S> (The trip was just okay.) <S> "How was your trip?" <S> "Not bad at all." <S> (The trip was good.) <S> My point of reference is Australian English, if it matters. <S> (Interestingly, note that both "pretty" and "fair" are adjectives for "attractive". <S> I'm not sure exactly where their adverb usage came from or whether it's related, but it's something I find "pretty" interesting.) <A> In AmE, pretty means to a significant degree , and fairly means to a moderate degree . <S> Pretty and fairly are closer to each other in meaning that either is to "a little. <S> " <S> I doubt that those lists of words in the source you cited are intended to be understood as exact synonyms. <S> They're probably meant to be understood as similar or related terms, as you'd find in a thesaurus.
| To my mind, the literal meaning of "pretty" is "to a moderate or limited extent".
|
Is it OK to put a "?" after embedded questions? I was wondering if it's OK to put a question mark after an embedded question? Example sentences are below: I was wondering if he is from California? I'm not sure if that's the right solution? I'd like to know if it's OK to put a question mark after an embedded question? <Q> The Chicago Manual of Style [ 6.67 , 6.68 ] confirms F.E's comment that your example sentences are indirect; they should not have question marks. <S> 6.67 <S> A question mark is used to mark the end of a direct question within a sentence. <S> If the question does not begin the sentence, it need not start with a capital letter (but see 6.52). <S> Is it worth the risk? <S> he wondered. <S> 6.68 <S> An indirect question never takes a question mark. <S> See also 6.52. <S> He wondered whether it was worth the risk. <S> How the two could be reconciled was the question on everyone’s mind. <A> All three of those sentences are declarative statements. <S> None are questions, and none contain a question. <S> So, each sentence should end with a period, not a question mark. <S> This is a common error made by native speakers in writing, because the intent of each statement is to get someone to respond by providing information, the same as a question. <S> But each sentence makes a statement of fact and leaves the questioning intent to implication. <S> The following might illustrate why these are declarative statements and not questions. <S> I was wondering if he is from California. <S> But when I saw his driver's license, I stopped wondering. <S> I'm not sure if that's the right solution. <S> And please don't tell me. <S> I'd like to know if it's OK to put a question mark after an embedded question. <S> To find out, I'll ask on ELL. <S> If you want to explicitly turn these into questions, you could write: <S> I was wondering, is he from California? <S> I'm not sure—is that the right solution? <S> I'd like to know <S> : is it OK to put a question mark after an embedded question? <S> These sentences really do contain questions. <S> You can tell by the altered word order . <A> Think of it as reported speech to understand it better. <S> For example "Have you been to Bristol before?" <S> is converted to the following in reported speech: <S> She asked if I had been to Bristol before. <S> The ( if / whether ) word works as a word to indicate what follows it is a question. <S> So, a trailing ? <S> interrogative mark to do the same is redundant, which is why it isn't needed and isn't used. <S> And it is a well-known fact that when a direct speech is converted to reported speech, it just becomes a declarative sentence.
| As you can see, the answer to your question is actually yes (depending on how one defines "embedded question").
|
I'm on a 12-hour blow -- meaning of "blow"? Example: — I need you back in 4 instead of 12. I got half of Korea coming in at noon. — No, no, no, I'm on a 12-hour blow . Call Tedesco. What does a 12-hour blow mean? <Q> Blow here is a slang usage (originally, U.S.) meaning a break (from work, particularly, physical work). <S> Compare to <S> take a breather = <S> a pause, as for breath , and blow = cocaine or other "recreational" drugs , and stop for a puff = have a cigarette break. <S> I confess that after several minutes checking online, I can't be sure which of the above represents the origin of the usage, but it puts me in mind of a whale surfacing for breath (through its blowhole ), so I'd go with the blow = <S> breather route. <S> Nevertheless, I'm sure many people say <S> "I'm going for a blow" , when they're thinking in terms of having a "smoke break" , rather than a chance to catch their breath . <S> Personally, I find OP's cited usage slightly "odd", because to me a "blow" is a relatively short break. <S> But I'm a BrE speaker - perhaps either AmE speakers are okay with using it for longer periods of being "off duty", or in the specific context , the speaker thinks of 12 hours as a relatively short period of free time (perhaps he's a soldier, offshore oil-rigger, etc., who's normally "at work" for weeks at a time, punctuated by periods of several days' leave of absence). <A> From Wiktionary: <S> Blow - noun sense 2 - (informal) <S> A chance to catch one’s breath. <S> The players were able to get a blow during the last timeout. <S> The word seems to be often used in this sense in sporting contexts. <S> From another source, A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English : blow , sense 4, "a breathing space".. .. get a blow , to get a breath of fresh air, or a considerable exposure to wind: from ca. <S> 1890 <A> You might say, "I need to take a quick blow." <S> It would absolutely not make sense to say that sentence. <S> A 12 hour blow would only be used in a porn film.
| It means to take a break (short). The word blow has drug and sex connotations and generally would never and should never be used like that unless you are doing an inside joke.
|
What does "I don't do dogs" mean? Left Ear (who is an explosives expert, but deaf in his right ear) : Okay, party people,here's the status. It's an anti-scaling fence. It's hardened,electro-plated steel. Yeah, I'm gonna have to paint that up with somenitromin. Charlie: Security on the property? Left Ear: Got an armed guard here. Little rent-a-cop, with a 9mm onhis hip. But that booth, security booth look prime for a chemicalgrenade. Lyle: Nitromin, chemical grenades, that stuff is pretty hard to comeby. Left Ear: Yeah, Lyle, it's a bear market...Sh*t. This dude got dogs. I don't do dogs . I had a real bad experience, man. Charlie: What happened? Left Ear: I had a bad experience. Da*n it. I'm deaf! -- The Italian Job 2003 This scene occurs when Left Ear stays in his car surveilling Steve's house with professional binoculars. I guess do here means deal with/handle . I checked the dictionaries but couldn't find any entries for this usage. Is this informal? Any other verbs which could be used to replace it? Can you please give me a few more examples to help me gain a better understanding of it? <Q> The locution "I don't do X" means "I consider X to be not a part of my job description". <S> That is, I am not willing to do X. <S> "I don't do windows" said the cleaning lady. <S> (see miltonaut's reference to Mrs Doubtfire) <S> So he's saying, in effect, "I have my particular set of skills <S> and I'm willing to use them on jobs. <S> But dealing with dogs isn't in the job description." <A> Very common, usually informal. <S> There's a scene in the movie <S> Mrs. Doubtfire <S> when Sally Fields' character is interviewing housekeepers. <S> One of the candidates is listing all the things she doesn't do. <S> I don't remember the exact list, but it's something like <S> : I don't do windows. <S> I don't do diapers. <S> I don't do pets. <S> I don't do laundry. <S> I don't do sports. <S> I don't do homework... <S> The housekeeper doesn't deal with/handle any of those things. <S> There's a movie from the 1980s starring Christina Applegate, <S> Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead . <S> Her brother and his friends take the dirty dishes to the roof and use them for shooting targets. <S> When they finish, the brother says, "The dishes are done, man!" <S> Actually, we use "do" with most household chores: <S> do the laundry, do the dishes, do the cleaning, do the chores. <S> Or you can do you hair, do your nails, do your shopping. <S> The deal with/handle definition comes from these uses. <A> I think the tricky part is not the verb "do" but the noun "dogs." <S> Usually English speakers use the word "dogs" to refer to friendly canine companions, as you would expect. <S> However, this is "job lingo." <S> The men in the Italian Job work in the same industry, crime. <S> Each industry usually develops its own shorthand, because "I don't do jobs that require me to work around unfriendly guard dogs," is just too long. <S> (As TRomano pointed out, "I don't do windows" is a similar phrasing. <S> As would be the equally strange looking " <S> I don't do simulations" in Engineering "job lingo.") <S> For a native English speaker, we might not automatically know what "I don't do dogs" means, but from the rest of the conversation, we would figure it out fast enough to keep up with the pace of the dialogue. <A> DO (verb) Oxford English Dictionary trans. <S> To deal with, do things to, perform actions on (in a prescribed, customary, or necessary way: the nature of the action being usually inferable from the object or subject). <S> Thus, Left Ear is saying that he doesn't "deal with" (handle) guard dogs. <S> So your guess was spot on. <S> Sub-definition 16a contains the "I don't do windows" sense: 16a. <S> To do work upon or at, repair, prepare, clean, wash, keep in order, etc.; to decorate, furnish. <S> Examples include 1883 <S> Leisure Hour 84/1 <S> The Chinaman who usually ‘does’ my room. <S> 1913 <S> Pop. <S> Mech. <S> Dec. 857/2 <S> To stand at the sink while ‘doing’ the dishes. ... <A> I choose not to take on work where dogs are involved. <S> as in I don't do cloud, I don't do C#, I don't do Wintel..... <S> Verbing <S> wierds words - Calvin and Hobbes. <S> As for the dishes being done - "done for" as in we're done/boned/stuffed/rooted etc. <S> "We're boned" - Bender. <A> I think the most accurate interpretation of "do" here, is "function". <S> As in, what a thing "does", is its function or one of its functions. <S> In this phrasing, the word is often meant to deliver humor. <S> Normally a person does not just begin enumerating things they will not do, so it constructs an implied question as though the listener has asked "What do you do? <S> " <S> The phrase then delivers the dry response "Not THAT. <S> " Or perhaps it asks "Will you do this?" and responds "No." <S> All this in a single brief statement that often provides some humorous comedic timing for the listener. <S> Another reason for the humor here is the flat refusal. <S> By intentionally skewering the English language with this extreme brevity, we are being told that the matter is closed and further discussion is not welcome. <S> In the scene in question, this is meant to convey the extreme distaste Left Ear has for dogs after a previous incident. <S> (cut scene to the "dog event", and foreshadow the likely upcoming incident for Left Ear and these dogs) <S> Here, we know the function/activity in question has something to do with dogs, and we have to deduce the rest. <S> Obviously the required task would be to handle the issue of the guard dogs relative to the overall crime plan (perhaps by sedating or distracting them). <S> I only partially agree with some of the posts here that say it specifically refers to job description. <S> I think the comment "Not in my job description!" <S> by Left Ear would have delivered different humor.
| All of the men in the scene understand the context, so "I don't do dogs" is sufficient.
|
She wants to 'poop' -is that okay if used for humans? I know the verb 'poop' but then not sure whether it's used for humans. More often than not, I've come across this verb when we talk about pets. But here, I'm searching for a verb in both ways - formal and informal. And yes, I want to learn how native speakers tell this- Yes, she wants to ____________ Please note that I am aware of the usage "She wants to go to loo/toilet" but then it does not solve my purpose. Loo/Toilet is just a place but I want to specifically ask/tell that a kid wants to defecate. Practical problem At times it happens with me too! I was at some small place near Port Hope (Canada), and I asked for a washroom thinking that it's a general term. A guy there showed me the place and I went. I saw this- And there was NO ... Luckily, I wanted to go No 1. But then it triggered this question in my mind! What if I want to make sure to the listener that I am asking for a commode and not urinals. <Q> Please note that I am aware of the usage <S> "She wants to go to loo/toilet" <S> but then it does not solve my purpose. <S> Loo/Toilet is just a place <S> but I want to specifically ask/tell that a kid wants to defecate. <S> In British English, "Go to the loo/toilet" doesn't just mean going to the room or the piece of furniture: it means using said piece of furniture. <S> "Poop" is American; the British equivalent is "poo" but that's something you'd normally only say to a child. <S> For adults, in most situations, you don't need to say why somebody is going to the toilet: <S> that's seen as private and people don't talk about it. <S> You might excuse yourself from the room by saying that you're going to the toilet but the people you're talking to don't need or want to know exactly what you plan to do there. <S> Saying where you're going serves more to inform them that you'll be back soon. <S> As such, if adults do talk to each other about defecation, it's usually in either euphemistic ("doing a number two"), coarse ("taking a dump") or offensive ("going for a shit") terms. <S> The main exception to this would be your doctor, who's likely to use terms like "defecate", "bowel movements" or "passing solids". <S> I was at some small place near Port Hope (Canada), and I asked for a washroom thinking that it's a general term. <S> A guy there showed me the place <S> and I went. <S> I saw [urinals] <S> but no [stalls]. <S> Yes, washroom/restroom/bathroom (North America) or toilets/loos/bathroom (UK) is the general term. <S> I've <S> never seen a men's toilets with only urinals, anywhere I've been (UK, Europe, North America). <S> It seems most likely that you missed the stalls/cubicles: perhaps they were behind a door that you mistook for a storage cupboard or something. <S> In my experience, anywhere that has space has both urinals and stalls; anywhere that doesn't have space for both just has an ordinary toilet. <A> Yes, "to poop" is used for humans. <S> However, I think it sounds a little strange to say, "Yes, she wants to _____. <S> " <S> "To poop" is the way that thought is expressed most of the time. <S> Other ways to say it <S> : <S> "Yes, she needs to defecate." <S> medical/clinical <S> "Yes, she needs to have a bowel movement." <S> discreet and medical/clinical <S> "Yes, she needs to go number two." <S> discreet and informal <S> "Yes, she needs to take a shit." <S> vulgar ("shit" is a curse word) <S> "Yes, she needs to take a dump." <S> vulgar " <S> Yes, she needs to drop the kids off at the pool." <S> a euphemism <S> - Someone might say this is they were trying to be funny <S> but it's not widely common <S> so you might find some people don't know what you mean.) <A> If you want to be even more discreet, you can also say it's a number 2. <A> But here, I'm searching for a verb in both ways - formal and informal. <S> And yes, I want to learn how native speakers tell this- <S> Informal: <S> The kindergartner told the teacher that he really needed to poop . <S> The pediatrician asked the young child if everything was OK when he went poop (or pooped). <S> Ron opened the door to find Harry either pooping or working on an expulso curse, he was not sure which. <S> Formal (medical contexts): <S> The doctor asked if the patient's bowel movements had been normal. <S> The professor told the med students always to inquire if a patient was having any difficulty digesting or defecating. <A> (I'd have added this as a comment only that requires 50 points.)To a native British English speaker, "poop" sounds American. <S> We'd say "poo". <A> It's perfectly valid and would be understood, however it's generally not used for adults. <S> In other words you would use it for children, but it's highly unlikely it would be used for teenagers or anyone older than that. <S> Most cultures have regional and class slang with varying degrees of potential offensiveness that would also be used for this so "native" speaking is going to vary a lot based on where you are and the people you are talking to. <A> In the US, it's very common for young children to say they have to "poop", or "go potty". <S> In fact, it's practically expected. <S> Some people are more uptight and insist on teaching their children to say they have to "go to (use) <S> the bathroom" or some such. <S> Maybe around 10 years-of-age or so does it get kind of weird to say you have to "poop", with any seriousness, anyway. <S> If you're not living in the US, then yes, you'll want to confer with some British subjects or what have you. <A> I'd say "she needs to poop" is fine, in any context. <S> But you asked about "she wants to poop". <S> That sounds very odd to my ears. <S> I don't think anybody ever really wants to poop <S> , it's just one of those things we all have to do from time to time.
| I would say, "Yes, she needs to poop." It depends on the culture, but this would be fine in America (if it's a child, and you specifically have to say it).
|
Should I use "after" or "until" when saying when a place will be closed? What should I write? What time does it [a restaurant] close? Not after/until midnight. You have plenty of time. Should I use after or until in the first sentence of the reply? Here's the context: I've just asked for directions to the restaurant. After I've been told the directions, I say: Thanks! What time does it close? The answer will be: Not after/until midnight. You have plenty of time. (This was taken from an English textbook .) <Q> So you have two choices: <S> Not after midnight. <S> Not until midnight. <S> After : later than something; following something in time Until : up to the point in time or the event mentioned If you say "Not after", you are saying that the restaurant doesn't close later than midnight. <S> It could close any time before midnight, so you haven't answered the question "What time does the restaurant close?". <S> You have said when it doesn't close. <S> That does answer the question "What time does the restaurant close?". <A> Ditto ColleenV, but one other point: If someone says "not after midnight" (or whatever time -- "not after dawn", "not after 9:00", "not after Fred gets back", etc) <S> that means that some event does not happen at a time following the specified time. <S> Usually this is used to describe some on-going event, and not a one-time event like closing. <S> Like if someone asked, "Is there a lot of traffic on First Street?", someone might reply "Not after midnight", meaning, there may be a lot of traffic before midnight, but not after. <S> That answer would be meaningful if the person answering had reason to believe that the asker is particularly interested in traffic after midnight, and so he wants to make clear that while you might see a lot of traffic if you go there earlier, you won't see so much after midnight. <S> It wouldn't be a helpful response if the person is thinking about driving on that street at noon. <S> Normally if someone asks when a business closes, you tell them the time. <S> Like, "When does this restaurant close?" <S> "At nine p.m." You might use a phrase like "not after midnight" if you were unsure about the time. <S> Like, "Hey, what time does this restaurant close? <S> I was hoping to stay here until my friend Bob can pick me up, but that won't be until 2:00 am." <S> "Oh, I'm pretty sure this place doesn't close after midnight. <S> Maybe 10 or 11 pm. <S> " But even that would be a strained wording. <S> You'd me more likely to say "I'm pretty sure it closes before midnight". <S> You say when it is, not when it isn't. <A> Midnight is a precise time - it is one minute after <S> 11:59pm - it is 12:00am "the next day." <S> As such, your response should be: <S> "You have plenty of time. <S> The restaurants closes at midnight." <S> If the restaurant closes after midnight, then the doors shut at 12:01am or later. <S> Colloquially, I would also say: "The restaurant doesn't close until midnight" - but note there the focus is on the time before midnight, not midnight itself. <S> I would also say, the restaurant doesn't close until 11pm.
| If you say "Not until", you are saying that the restaurant doesn't close up to the time of midnight, then at midnight, it closes.
|
I achieved great results - or some great results? For the last 2 year I've been using the method I described to you, and I achieved ( some ) great results. Would such sentence look better with or without the determiner some ? What would be the difference in meaning or tone, if any? I remember that omitting some can change the meaning in some situations, like in I bought (some) books! (telling to his wife upon entering the apartment) Would imply, with some omitted, "I bought not some other thing(s), but books". <Q> To me, "I achieved some great results. <S> " means that you had some number of results that were amazing among all of the results. <S> I don't think it has a negative connotation though, particularly if you're talking about something that has a lot of variability beyond your control, like for example, training aggressive dogs to make them less dangerous. <S> "I achieved great results. <S> " has the sense to me that "I used this tool in the circumstances that called for it, and it always did well." <A> I would say the use of the word "some" diminishes the impact of the words that follow it. <S> Moreso in the book example. <A> I recall Bobby Fischer mentioning in his notes to a chess game that "we had some great results with this system. <S> " <S> Meaning, that in a number of discrete cases, employing the system had had a great result. <S> If he had said "we had great results with this system <S> " this would have a more general sense. <S> Of course, the meaning is the same whether you use <S> some or not: the "results" in question are the outcomes of chess games, whether referenced discretely or en masse.
| "I achieved some great results" would maybe infer less "great results" than "I achieved great results".
|
Set or put in the freezer? Which one is correct? A: I set my bottle of water in the freezer. B: I put my bottle of water in the freezer. Is there any difference? <Q> However, I might choose "set" over "put" in situations where I placed the object more carefully. <S> If I have a bottle of water with a tight cap on it, I put it in the fridge. <S> If I have a crystal bowl with a fancy trifle in it, I might set it in the fridge. <A> Both are grammatically correct. <S> In fact the definition of 'set' includes the definition of 'put`. <S> They are nearly synonyms in the usage in question. <S> I do agree with this comment <S> that B ('put') is more common. <A> You should use the verb 'keep' for the things which you need to put in the fridge regularly. <S> For example Do you keep ice the freezer ? <S> Do you keep water bottles in the fridge ? <S> Here <S> neither 'set' or 'put' is correct. <S> You'll find the verb 'keep' printed on the medicine bottles and other things which are supposed to be kept in the fridge. <S> Definition of 'set' - to put someone or something in a position 'Set' is preferably used when you are allocating a place for a particular thing or you are setting a paritcular thing in a particular position. <S> For example <S> Where do you want to set this tv ? <S> So in your example it is less appropriate to use 'set' because you are not allocating a place to the bottle. <S> However 'put' should work fine here.
| As has already been stated, both are correct and there is no significant difference between the two.
|
The fire demon won't bend down his head to be cooked on “I can cook,” said Sophie. “Unhook that frying pan and I’ll show you.” “She reached for the large black pan hanging on the closet wall, in spite of Michael trying to prevent her. “You don’t understand,” Michael said. “It’s Calcifer, the fire demon. He won’t bend down his head to be cooked on for anyone but Howl.” Sophie turned and looked at the fire demon. He flickered back at her wickedly. “I refuse to be exploited,” he said. (Howl’s Moving Castle, by Diana Wynne Jones) What does ‘ to be cooked on ’ mean? While eggs and bacon can be cooked on the frying pan with the fire, how the fire could be cooked? And what role does ‘ on ’ take? Is there an omission of subject for ‘to be cooked’: e.g. eggs and bacon? And is there the invisible complement of ‘ on ’: his head? <Q> First, I have read this book and 'bend down his head' is meant literally. <S> Second, the phrase "He won't bend down his head to be cooked on." <S> When we cook using a fire or stove or similar, we say that we cook on it rather than with it. <S> "Sophie cooks on the stove." <S> Now convert that to the passive voice. <S> "Sophie cooks on the stove." <S> - Active <S> "The stove is cooked on." <S> - Passive <S> We use this phrase to make a passive infinitive verb: 'to be cooked on'. <S> The preposition 'on' stays with the verb. <S> " <S> He won't be cooked on." <S> "He refuses to be cooked on." <S> "He won't bend down his head to be cooked on." <S> Imagine that there was another demon who could turn into household objects. <S> "Sophie sits on the chair." <S> "The chair is sat on." <S> "He won't turn into a chair to be sat on." <S> This one might be clearer. <S> You can't sit a chair. <S> You can only sit on a chair. <S> So the passive infinitive verb is 'to be sat on'. <S> They want a chair to sit on. <S> "Sophie cleans with the broom." <S> "The broom is cleaned with." <S> "He won't turn into a broom to be cleaned with." <S> You can clean a broom if it's dirty, but you can also clean with a broom, if the floor is dirty. <S> So using 'to be cleaned with' instead of 'to be cleaned' means that they want to use the broom for cleaning, not to clean the broom. <A> To cook something on something: They cooked fish on a grill. <S> To sit on something: He sat on a chair. <S> To be sat on: <S> The chair is designed to be sat on. <S> To be cooked on: The grill is designed to be cooked on. <S> Why are you scraping off loose paint with a dinner fork? <S> A dinner fork is meant to be eaten with . <S> I would like to be in the school play, but I would prefer to have a speaking role! <S> I don't want to bend over on all fours, to be sat on, as if I were a sofa! <A> I'm not familiar with the book, but clearly the fire-demon is a source of heat; and is not consenting to be used in this way by just anyone; presumably the mechanism of deriving heat involves him bending his head down (to a height suitable for cooking) and the frying pan goes on top... <S> So the fire-demon is not the subject of the cooking, but the source. <S> The cooking goes on the demon in the same way a hat goes on a head. <A> The sentence is clearer when you picture the character involved. <S> This is how Calcifer (the fire demon) was imagined in Hayao Miyazaki's interpretation of Howl's Moving Castle : <S> However, as the book describes the fire demon as having to "bend over", perhaps the author imagined something more like Hades from the Disney movie <S> Hercules : <S> In order for someone to cook food using the flame on Hades' head, he would have to literally bend over; he would need to bend down his head <S> so they can cook food on his head . <S> However, he refuses to do this; he "won’t bend down his head [so that it can be] cooked on" . <A> First and foremost , "bend your mind to something" means to give all your energy or attention to one activity, plan etc. <S> So, this [mysterious] Calcifer will not accept and perhaps try to be cooked on for anyone's sake but [more mysterious] Howl. <S> For the second part of the question, I should mention that "to be cooked on" here means something get cooked on that. <S> It seems Calcifer can work as a stove!
| Calcifer is a living fire who can be used as a stove, but only if he puts his head in the right position first.
|
what is the opposite of the word 'flat'? The surface of the colony* is flat and rugged. The surface of the colony* is not flat and rugged. *(a colony of fungi) Flat is in this case refers to the elevation of the colony. From the side view, it's flat, like a computer disc. What is the opposite of flat, for this context? Is it non-flat? <Q> There are too many antonyms to count! <S> It depends on how you want to use the word: <S> The cola is not flat, it's bubbly . <S> The tire is not flat, it's full . <S> Her lecture was not flat, it was exciting . <S> His humor isn't flat, it's wry . <S> The earth isn't flat, it's round . <S> Business is not flat, it's booming . <S> That roof is not flat, it's sloped . <S> Our piano is not flat, it's sharp . <S> His feet are not flat, they're arched . <S> The tax scale isn't flat, it's graduated . <S> His denial of the allegations were not flat, they were wavering . <S> You made the classic "mistake" of asking for an antonym without furnishing a context! <S> I'm guessing you had something more like this in mind: <S> The countryside isn't flat, it's hilly . <S> but that might not work near a valley. <A> If you're talking about the surface of a colony of fungus, and it is not flat, there are many different terms you could use based on the level of "not-flat-ness" (patent pending): <S> Rough - Think like the texture of sandpaper or jeans <S> Ribbed - Like corduroy pants <S> Varied - Like rolling hills. <S> Areas are flat, and others sloped Sloped - Like a round hill, or the top of a mushroom <S> Cracked <S> - Has cracks in it <S> Creviced - Like cracked, but deeper <S> Pockmarked - Filled with small holes, like a sponge <S> Cleft - Split in the middle, like a cleft chin <S> Mountainous - Mountains <S> Severe - Steep <S> Pitted - Like pockmarked, but deeper holes <S> They all have subtle meanings, implying different levels of "not-flat-ness." <S> Also, as others have pointed out, you would not usually say that something is both flat AND rugged. <S> In English, rugged is typically used to amplify the adjective describing how unflat something is. <S> So mountains are rugged, but a flat plains land probably wouldn't necessarily be, unless you're trying to imply that at first glance the prairie looked flat and easy to cross <S> but it turned out not to be because it was full of danger. <A> I would go with: "Undulating". <A> The problem here is that asking for a generic antonym for "flat" is rather like asking for an antonym for "neutral" or "plain", or perhaps "silent" or "odorless" — they're all words that describe the absence of any features of a certain type, and so any informative antonym would need to describe which features are actually present. <S> Or, to misquote Leo Tolstoy : all flat surfaces are alike, but all non-flat ones are different. <S> That said, if you do really need a generic antonym for "flat", e.g. to present a binary choice between flat and non-flat, some possible choices could be: "textured" ( as suggested by <S> BM- ): <S> Tends to imply the presence of small-scale variation; sometimes used as an antonym of "smooth", or as a milder near-synonym for "rough". <S> Common in certain technical fields; for example, a graphic artist might describe the color of a surface as either flat/solid or textured. <S> "varied" : A generic word for "not all the same". <S> May be used synonymously with "textured", but with a slightly broader sense. <S> "elevated" : An antonym of "flat" in a somewhat different sense than either "textured" or "varied". <S> Could be applicable if "flat" is being used in a sense of "lying close to a surface". <S> "not flat" : This really is the most generic possible antonym for "flat". <S> In fact, many general English antonym pairs, like "colorful" / "colorless" or "visible" / "invisible", are of this type — the word "flat" just doesn't happen to have a regular suffix like "-ful" that could be inverted to "-less", and doesn't customarily accept a negative prefix like "un-" or "in-", so it has to be negated somewhat more awkwardly. <S> (That said, *"unflat", while not a commonly used word in contemporary English, would certainly be an understandable construction. <S> I'm not really advising you to use it, but you could do it and get the meaning across. <S> "Non-flat", as I've used earlier, would be a somewhat better compromise.) <A> Possibly "textured" might work, if further description of the surface is not required.
| Not flat - Exactly what it says, something's not flat. Undulating - Marked by steep rolling hills Fissured - Similar to cracked, but stronger Craggy - Like the rocky face of a cliff
|
Difference between "has started" and "is started" From http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y2876e/y2876e0i.htm : Once bargaining has started , other intermediaries remain at a distance and wait for their turn to deal, should the first intermediary fail to obtain the fisherman's lot. Why has the writer used perfect tense in the above sentence? If I say it with simple tense, does it mean the same? Once bargaining is started , other intermediaries remain at a distance and wait for their turn to deal, should the first intermediary fail to obtain the fisherman's lot If the writer just wants to say that when bargaining starts, other intermediaries remain at a distance, why he has used perfect tense? If i Say "Once Match has cancelled other teams players remain at a distance". Is it correct then? <Q> Since there is no object in the clause, this uses the intransitive sense of "to start". <S> It means that there exists in the present tense some condition that the perfect action caused. <S> "Is started" is a passive voice, present tense, indefinite aspect construction. <S> Because of the passive voice, it does not make sense to call this a simple tense. <S> This uses the transitive sense of "to start". <S> It implies that bargaining is started by some agent. <S> The author would avoid this form if there is no specific action or signal that starts the bargaining. <S> The simple present-tense form is "starts". <S> It is an active voice, present tense, indefinite aspect construction. <S> Like the present perfect, it would use the intransitive sense of "to start" in this context. <S> The author could have chosen to use the simple form. <S> That some condition exists because the bargaining starts can be reasonably inferred. <S> The use of the perfect construction, however, makes that condition explicit. <S> With the simple form, the finished action may have a current effect. <S> With the present perfect form, the finished action certainly has a current effect. <A> While both of those verbs convey the same meaning that the process of 'bargaining' is going on, I think using 'has' stretches the time, though a bit. <S> I see the use of 'once' which denotes some point of time. <S> So, to comprise, is started... <S> talks about right there, bargaining started. <S> On the other hand, has started... <S> talks about the process of bargaining just being started with a little stretch of time. <A> Classes have started/classes have been started/classes are started. <S> Correct usage with reasons n conceptual clarity is needed.
| "Has started" is an active voice, present tense, perfect aspect construction.
|
differences between dependence and dependency In Webster, "dependence" is defined as "the state of being dependent" ( http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/dependence ) and "dependency" as "the quality of being dependent; dependence " ( http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/dependency ). According to the meaning, I think "dependence" is more likely to be used in concrete situations and "dependency" in abstract situations. However, in the following examples, I find out the two words are almost interchangeable. Could you please tell me the differences between the two words? Or are there any differences? <Q> By definition, all words referencing such "states" are abstract nouns, so I don't see any justification for OP's abstract/concrete distinction in that sense. <S> As you can see from this NGram , dependency has gained ground in recent decades, but both are in common use. <S> The main usage difference is that dependency can be used in a second sense as a "concrete" noun to mean a person or thing which depends on something/someone else . <S> But note that in the programming context it's not uncommon to see it used to mean a software resource upon which some piece of software depends (i.e. - reversing the need/provide relationship). <S> In principle, dependence could also be used with that second sense - but as OED points out, all such usages are now either obsolete or archaic. <S> TL;DR: If you want the easy way out (which looks like the way majority usage is going anyway), you can probably get away with using dependency all the time. <S> But I must be honest - as a native speaker I'd probably tend to refer to his drug dependency , but <S> his dependence on drugs (maybe because I see one as a problem he has , and the other as something <S> he's doing , I don't know). <A> There are certainly cases where you can use dependency and cannot use dependence: for example "The UK's overseas dependencies", or "This software releases has dependencies on Unix and Java". <S> So if the dependent things are discrete and countable, it should definitely be "dependency". <S> I think that "dependency" is usually the thing that you depend on, whereas dependence is the state of depending on it. <S> But there are certainly cases where you could use either interchangeably. <S> And as others have pointed out, there is potential for ambiguity: <S> if A is dependent on B, then a dependence or dependency (relationship) exists; but referring to either A or B as the dependency demands context. <A> There is a somewhat tricky relationship between these two words. <S> In the Longman dictionary when you search for dependence <S> it starts with: dependence ... <S> ( also dependency) <S> noun[uncountable] <S> I guess so far the relationship is clear. <S> However this relationship is unilateral. <S> Indeed, dependency has meanings which are not implied by dependence. <S> Again with regard to the Longman dictionary, when you search for "dependency" you see this: 1: [uncountable] dependece 2: [countable] a country that is controlled by another country (e.g. Britain's Caribbean dependencies)
| Dependence and dependency can both be used in the state/condition of being dependent sense.
|
What to do for New Year's Eve - or on New Year's Eve? What are you going to do for New Year's Eve? and I started worrying about what to do on New Year's Eve. These are example sentences from Google Books. What is the difference between the use of for and on ? Is "to do something for New Year's Eve" fully synonymous with "to do something on New Year's Eve"? <Q> These two sentences are very similar and there is only a subtle semantic difference between them. <S> Most people probably wouldn't think twice at hearing either one in any circumstance. <S> 'For' implies the actions being taken are caused by or in response to something (in this case, New Year's Eve). <S> This emphasizes New Year's Eve as a special event, rather than just another day. <S> You would use this to talk about things that happen specifically on account of or because of New Year. <S> 'On' is how we generally refer to times and places (on that day, on top of the hill, etc). <S> This puts less emphasis on New Year's Eve as a special day by referring to it just as you would any other day. <S> You would probably use this to talk about things that could happen any day. <S> If I were telling someone about small details of my plans for the day, I would use 'on': On New Year's Eve, I will wake up, eat breakfast, go for a walk and drink Champagne.(These <S> are all things that could happen on any day, but they happen to be on New Year's Eve) <S> If I were telling someone about traditions and things that make the New Years holiday special, I would use 'for': For New Year's Eve, I will get together with my friends and make resolutions to improve my life.(These are things that are done for the purpose of, or because of the New Year's Eve holiday) <A> What are you going to do anything special for New Year's Eve? <S> This is asking what you will do because of the holiday. <S> This is often used to describe preparations or actions occuring because of the holiday. <S> I will make special cookies for New Year's Day. <S> Are you planning a party for New Year's Eve? <S> If you say: What are you going to do on New Year's Eve? <S> you are specifically asking what you will be doing on that day. <S> I will go to that party on New Year's Eve. <S> We will have a special dinner on New Year's Eve. <A> What are you doing for [your celebration of] New Year's Eve? <S> What are you doing on [the day of] New Year's Eve? <S> When we're talking about normal days (not holidays), on is preferred, and for does not sound natural: <S> What are you doing on Saturday? <S> What are you doing for Saturday? <S> In the second case, the use of "for" suggests "for the celebration of", which suggests that the upcoming Saturday is a holiday. <S> (If Saturday is New Year's Eve, or the day of my birthday party, or some other special occasion, then "for Saturday" would be correct.) <A> In India, we have Diwali holidays. <S> Take a note that there are 'holidayS' and not a holiday. <S> We often ask each other... <S> What is your plan for Diwali <S> ~ I think I'll visit my hometown. <S> I may then plan for good shopping. <S> On the other hand, What is your plan on Diwali <S> ~ I'll be at home celebrating with my family. <S> Taking a sensible note from this, I can say that 'something for <S> some festival' talks about the 'event' as a whole and 'something on festival day' talks more about the activity on that particular day. <S> So, understanding the nuance of something for festival and something on festival day clarifies the matter.
| When speaking about holidays, both on and for sound natural and are virtually synonymous.
|
chat it out -- meaning? Example: Anyway, we should start today's episode. And today we are doing a chatterbox episode and that is where we talk about a subject in depth and just sort of chat it out . What does that expression mean exactly? Could you please give me some additional examples of how it's used in everyday conversation? <Q> I've not heard the phrase chat it out used before. <S> I can find it on Google, but it's not commonly used. <S> A Google Ngram doesn't return any instances of "chat it out. <S> " <S> I suspect that they are adapting the phrase <S> " talk it out" to " chat it out" because they've named the type of show a "chatterbox episode." <S> What they mean is that they will examine a topic, perhaps a controversial social or political issue, in detail, and try to come to a resolution of the issue. <S> Calling it a "chat" implies that the discussion will be civil and relatively lighthearted. <S> They're thinking about the issue but doing so out loud and in a group rather than in their own minds. <S> Talk it out <S> can mean much the same thing as debate or discuss . <S> It is often used when two parties disagree on an issue and are reluctant to have a civil discussion with one another, even though that discussion would benefit both parties. <S> Here are a few examples: <S> Democrats and Republicans disagree on immigration policy less than most people think. <S> If they would just come together and talk it out , something productive might occur. <S> Jane was dating John, but now he's with Sally and the girls are fighting. <S> They play on the same basketball team and see each other every day, so at some point they're going to have to talk it out . <S> Sam has been really distraught since his mother passed away; I really think it would help if he would open up about his feelings and talk it out with a friend. <A> It means to have a conversation until you reach a conclusion. <S> If you were just to chat , it would be aimless and for the joy of conversation. <S> Chatting it out implies that you wish to come to some sort of agreement in the end. <S> It's the same as working it out , where you may be given a problem that you need to solve, or any other phrases in that same ilk such as fleshing it out or planning it out , both meaning to work on a task with a certain aim. <S> Example: <S> I have some ideas regarding our new office structure. <S> Can we meet up and chat it out over lunch? <S> I chatted it out with John and we decided that no, we won't have hover-desks. <S> Please bear in mind that it is a very colloquial phrase and would never be used in formal writing as it makes no grammatical sense. <A> “Talk it out” is more common in my experience. <S> Let's not get mad. <S> Let's just talk it out. <S> Please, let's talk out this matter calmly. <S> Source: <S> McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs, via TFD <S> There’s also an element of “tease out” to be aware of. <S> tease out something <S> also tease something out to carefully separate particular facts from a great deal of information <S> What has always been interesting for me is how you can tease out the reasons for an event as you review its history. <S> After a while, you learn how to tease out the errors hidden in texts. <S> Source: Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms, via TFD <S> The implication is that an attempt will be made to resolve (or at least clarify) a complex topic through conversation. <S> The speaker seems hopeful that over the course of a targeted dialog, certain elements will be pulled out and discussed with the end result of greater understanding of the issue. <S> Keep in mind that “sort of” is a universal hedge , there to inform you that what follows does not perfectly express the speaker’s mind and/or isn’t common parlance. <S> . <S> . <S> .we <S> talk about a subject in depth and <S> just sort of chat it out.
| talk something out to settle something by discussion.
|
What is the appropriate preposition for this sentence? There are the greyish black spots in/on the centre of the colony † . Which preposition is appropriate? Is it in or on ? † The colony of fungi <Q> in Since the spots are still part of the colony itself, they are in the center, not on it. <S> Unless, for some reason, the speaker's intent is to say the spots are not part of the colony. <S> In this case, on would be correct. <A> What definition of "colony" are you using? <S> What sort of colony? <S> For example, if it is a space colony (like a moon base), and the spots are some sort of mold growing on the outside of the central building of the colony, on may be more appropriate. <S> There are situations where in and on <S> can both be okay, too, depending on what propositions (distinct from prepositions) are behind your sentence. <A> Here's how to think about this. <S> Consider the following sentences and think: Which seems most like what you have in mind? <S> The book is on the table. <S> I am in the living room. <S> I am at home. <S> In emphasizes the interior. <S> At just indicates the location without bringing in ideas of a surface or an interior. <S> The fact that you are saying the center suggests that you want to emphasize the interior. <S> So, in the center probably fits best. <S> However: If you want to emphasize that the spot is only at the surface of the colony, then you could say it's on the center . <S> This leads your listener to see the spot as similar to a book on a table. <S> This would be most appropriate if the spot is not part of the colony. <S> If the center is a distinct region of the colony, like a room in a house, and the spot is smaller than the center, then you would say that the spot is in the center . <S> If the center is a distinct region of the colony, like a room in a house, and the spot is so large that it covers the center, then you would say the spot is on the center . <S> If the spot is not exactly at the center, then you could say it's near the center . <S> If the spot is below the surface of the colony, then on would be wrong. <S> If your intended meaning is about equally close to all of the example sentences, then any of the three prepositions is correct.
| If the center is a point rather than a distinct region, and the spot is at the exact center of the colony, then you could say it's at the center . On emphasizes the top surface.
|
What does/do her parents do? What does her parents do? What do her parents do? Which one is correct? Can you have does and do in the same sentence like the first one? Would it be incorrect because parents is plural so do must be used throughout? <Q> What do her parents do? <S> Here the subject of the sentence is her parents . <S> Because her parents is plural the auxiliary verb DO must agree with the plural noun phrase, so we need do and not does . <S> The auxiliary verb DO is the first verb in the sentence. <S> This is the verb that moves in front of the subject. <S> It has no meaning, it just helps to make the sentence a question. <S> The verb after auxiliary <S> Do <S> is ALWAYS <S> an infinitive. <S> It can never be "Xing", "Xs", "Xed" or "to X". <S> : <S> Does he eats ? <S> Did they went ? <S> We don't liking ... <S> They didn't to come . <S> It should be: <S> Does he eat? <S> Did they go? <S> We don't like ... <S> They didn't come. <S> However, the second DO in the Original <S> Poster's example is the main verb. <S> It's the lexical verb DO . <S> It isn't an auxiliary. <S> Because it comes after the auxiliary DO , it must be in the infinitive. <S> The verb after auxiliary <S> DO <S> is ALWAYS <S> an infinitive. <S> Therefore the sentence must be like this: <S> What do her parents do? <S> Hope <S> this is helpful! <A> It's "do". <S> Think about the answer to the questions. <S> "Her parents does " is incorrect, whereas Her parents do a mean chicken casserole. <S> Is natural sounding and correct. <A> To answer your specific question, Can you have does <S> and do in the same sentence like the first one? <S> , <S> Yes, you can. <S> You can have do twice, but not does twice. <S> This is not a very helpful rule, however. <S> The role that each word plays is very different in each case. <S> The first use of do <S> / does is just a way to construct a question in English. <S> It has nothing to do with the second use, which is what the question is really about. <S> Try with a different verb in the question: <S> What do / does her parents cook ? <S> Clearly, the word cook is irrelevant to whether we should use do or does . <S> In reply to your hypothetical question, you could preserve <S> the <S> do to give a more assertive tone. <S> Her parents do cook. <S> Her parents do do. <S> Or in singular form: <S> Her father does cook. <S> Her father does do. <S> So there's nothing wrong with a sentence with multiple uses of do . <A> Araucaria answered the part about which is correct. <S> Yes, it's "do", because the subject is "her parents", which is plural, and so requires a plural verb. <S> Maybe you're thinking of the common advice to avoid using the same word twice in a sentence, but this is a matter of style and not an absolute rule. <S> I wouldn't write, "I bought a car from the car salesman at Friendly Car Lot" because the repeated use of the word "car" sounds awkward. <S> But short, common words like "the" and "do" are used repeatedly all the time and no one really notices. <S> Note the two "do"s are serving different functions in the sentence. <S> The first is part of the conventional way of phrasing a question about an action: "What do ... <S> " The second is the specific action being asked about. <S> Many other verbs would fit in its place. <S> "What do her parents read?" <S> "What do her parents eat?" etc. <A> I saw you're struggling between "parent" and parents. <S> Let's start from your question. <S> First, we need to see the subject here which is "parents", mean both of our mother and father, which means that this is a plural subject. <S> For plural subject, you must use the root word. <S> So,.... What does her parents do? <S> (Wrong) <S> What do her parents do? <S> (Right) <S> I saw that you ask Ste about the word "parent". <S> The word "parent" here means one of the parent(father or mother), which is a singular subject. <S> For singular subject, we must add -s, -es, -ies and more. <S> So,..... What do her parent do? <S> (Wrong) <S> What does her parent do? <S> (Right) <S> In conclusion, we must pay attention on the subject to see which is suitable for the sentence. <A> The correct question is, "What do her parents do?"Since the word 'parents' is plural you would use 'do.' <S> Of course if you had the word 'parent' instead of 'parents'you would use does. <S> "What do her parents do?""What <S> does her parent do?"
| We can only have one auxiliary verb DO in a sentence. As to whether you can use the word "do" twice in a sentence: Sure you can.
|
Can "on the other hand" be used without its "On the one hand"? Is it grammatically OK to use only one part of "On the one hand... . On the other hand...."? On the one hand they'd love to have kids, but on the other, they don't want to give up their freedom [OALD 8]. Opposed to the preceding example, can I say? They'd love to have kids. On the other, they don't want to give up their freedom. <Q> On the one hand they'd love to have kids, but on the other, they don't want to give up their freedom. <S> We do not need to use the phrase on the one hand , before the first sentence if we do not want to. <S> It can make things more interesting for the reader if we do though, because they will be waiting for the new and different piece of information. <S> However, let's look at the original sentence again: <S> On the one hand they'd love to have kids, but on the other, they don't want to give up their freedom. <S> Notice that because we already used hand in the first part of the sentence we don't need to use it again in the second part. <S> But - if we didn't say On the one hand , we need to use the full phrase 'On the other hand' , we cannot just say ' on the other ': <S> They'd love to have kids. <S> * <S> On the other, they don't want to give uptheir freedom. <S> (wrong) <S> They'd love to have kids. <S> On the other hand, they don't want to give up their freedom. <S> (good) <S> Hope <S> this is helpful! <A> Yes, if you say "on the other hand" without a preceding "on the one hand", that meaning is implied. <S> Indeed, people often use the idiom this way in conversation, as opposed to writing, when at the time they make the first statement, they have not considered that there is a drawback or an alternative. <S> Like two friends might be chatting and one says, "Time for lunch, let's go to McBobs. <S> [pause] <S> On the other hand, we go to McBobs all the time. <S> Let's go somewhere else today. <S> " This would be less applicable to writing, where you would likely edit the sentence to add "on the one hand" before the first option. <S> And I am suddenly reminded of a review of a book by Peter Shickele: <S> "On the one hand, Peter Shickele is very funny. <S> On the other hand he wears a ring." <A> You can say "on the other hand" without having previously said "on one hand". <S> However, you probably should not use "on the other hand" when there are more than two possibilities. <S> That's too far. <A> You can say "on the other hand" by itself as long as it's implied what the first "hand" was. <S> You skip ahead to saying the advantage (or disadvantage) to doing the opposite then. <S> We could eat lunch. <S> On the other hand, if we eat later we can get shopping out of the way." <S> It's a little wrong to say "on the one hand" without the other hand, because the listener is waiting for the other hand. <S> However, if "the other hand" is too gruesome, funny, or otherwise both obvious but offensive to say aloud, it's possible to omit and draw the end of the sentence out to imply "you know what the other hand is." <S> On the one hand, she is really good at basketball... <S> [but we both know she really isn't good at anything else]
| We can just say on the other , instead of on the other hand .
|
I'm afraid we couldn't agree to that I know that giving positive answers to requests with could may sound impolite or taken as indirect negative answers -correct me if I am wrong- as follows: A: Could you help me with moving out? B: Yes, I could. And I always found the conditional could used in polite requests (question form), but never in statements like the one in the business dialogue below until recently (aside from the past tense and deductions usage) I have asked about the use of could before in the comments here , but I'm afraid I didn't explain myself as clearly as I should be. However, I found the dialogue below as a confirmation that "could" in the title is used to give the meaning in the present. A As you know we've established a reputation in China. So, we propose that the sandwiches and cookies should be packaged and sold in our branded wrapping. B I'm afraid we couldn't agree to that because we put everything in our own branded bag and it's company policy not to change this. A OK, but it's important for our corporate image for your customers to recognize us as the suppliers of the goods so there should, at least, be a label with our company logo on it. B I'm sorry but that's out of the question, I'm afraid for the same reasons I just explained. A If that's the case, then we can't offer you exactly the same products as the ones we currently sell. There'll have to be changes. B I see your point but we only want exactly the same goods as you sell now. A Then, we'll have to increase the price of our products, if you can't compromise on this. B I think we could go along with that. And what about in-shop signs quoting your company as the suppliers? I think that could be arranged ... Source: here The question is made simple to conform with SE guidelines. Is my understanding of could in the present is correct? <Q> Almost. <S> In a question, could can often be replaced with "is it possible that/for". <S> In a statement, could can often be replaced with "are able". <S> Also: could is not to be confused with will . <S> For example, I could smash my keyboard. <S> does not mean I will smash my keyboard. <A> As Mooseman says, "could" indicates that something is possible. <S> "I could help you" means "I am capable of helping you". <S> Exactly what the speaker means by this can be ambiguous. <S> He might mean, "Yes, I am indeed capable of helping you <S> and so I will. <S> " Or he might mean, "I am capable of helping you, but I am not going to help you because what you ask is too difficult or boring <S> or I don't like you" etc. <S> You would have to hear or read the larger context to know which is meant. <S> In speech, you often rely on tone of voice. <S> Like if someone says, "Well, I COULD help you", putting emphasis on the word "could", that likely means that he won't. <S> But if he says "Yes, I could help you" in a normal tone, that probably means that he will help. <A> In many cases, using the word "could" instead of "will" or "can" implies that the action being referenced is conditional upon something that is not currently true. <S> To use your first example: <S> "Could you help me with moving out?" <S> "I could, if I weren't going to be out of town that day." <S> The impolite or negative connotation comes from an inferred second clause: <S> "Could you help me with moving out?" <S> "I could, <S> but I don't want to." <S> (the precondition in this case is a desire to help) <S> This inferrence may happen automatically for a lot of people because it is commonly used as a joke or a sarcastic comeback. <S> You might also hear it from a pedantic grammar teacher that is discouraging a student from using the word "could" in the question when "will" is more technically appropriate. <S> In your business negotiation example, Party B is using "could not" to express the opposite: <S> Party A's proposal is unacceptable regardless of other conditions. <S> To give a simplified example: <S> "We could agree to that, but not without further concessions from you." <S> "We could not agree to that, and nothing you can offer us will change that." <S> By contrast, using "can" instead would invert the need for conditions: <S> "We can agree to that." <S> (Simple agreement, nothing else required) <S> "We cannot agree to that." <S> (…but maybe we could agree later, if certain conditions are met) <A> In business it is sometimes useful to use conditional language like this to avoid making a verbal contract. <S> The executives or sales men will discuss the idea of the arrangement, but then pass the contract wording and details off to the law department. <S> The use of could in "I think we could go along with that" is conditional, and the "I think" also further makes this a conditional statement not yet a firm contract.
| Could just acknowledges the possibility of something.
|
Is "long time no see" right？ I've always thought that the phrase 'long time no see' was wrong and unacceptable, until one day I heard this phrase in an American movie. I want to know, is this phrase right or not? <Q> Long time no see probably derives from pidgin English spoken by Native Americans or Chinese immigrants, although no one is completely sure. <S> It matches the Mandarin Chinese phrase 好久不見 (hǎo jiǔ bú jiàn) word-for-word,* which is grammatical in Mandarin. <S> The phrase is used so much, many people use it without knowing that, but to native ears, it certainly sounds like pidgin English because of the ungrammaticality you noticed. <S> A few other pidgin phrases have gained some currency in English, such as: look-see , from Chinese pidgin English, as in "I'll have a look-see"; savvy to mean "understand", as in "You savvy?", probably from West African pidgin English; and da kine , Hawaiian pidgin English for "the kind", but meaning pretty much anything, or sometimes "the original kind" or "the best kind". <S> To retain their distinctive character, these phrases don't adapt to English grammar; they retain their own grammar even when included in English sentences. <S> Sometimes people modify long time no see , retaining the pidgin grammar; for example, long time me no see you girl . <S> * <S> Ignoring the usual subtle differences between corresponding words in different languages. <A> Despite its ungrammaticality , the expression is widely accepted as a fixed expression. <A> It's somewhat informal but perfectly acceptable. <S> As the others point out, this is a fixed expression. <S> You should memorize it as a single vocabulary item. <S> It's true that it doesn't follow the usual rules of English grammar, so you could certainly call it "ungrammatical" if you wanted to. <S> But the fact is, English speakers don't apply those rules to this phrase, so whether it's grammatical or not is the wrong question to ask. <S> In fact, you could say it has its own rules, just as many fixed expressions do. <S> And occasionally, we'll see these rules in action when native speakers form similar phrases by analogy . <S> Feel free to say "long time no see" if it seems appropriate. <S> It sounds informal and friendly! <A> It is not a complete sentence and so it is not grammatically correct. <S> But it's a very common expression, and so is acceptable in all but the most formal writing. <A> It's grammatically wrong as it doesn't have a subject <S> make it as a incomplete sentence( like what Jay say). <S> However, it's a common expression and is acceptable for writing informal thing (like Facebook). <S> I will give you another example on expression based on this situation <S> "See you soon". <S> If you write grammatically, it should be "I will see you soon", but it's a common expression we use in our everyday life. <S> So, it's acceptable.
| When you say long time no see , you are pretending to speak broken English, fitting English words to a foreign or pidgin grammar.
|
Is it possible to use 'present continuous' to give an instruction? M.swan PEU says "we often use present tenses to give instructions." Other grammar books say "the simple present is used to give instructions". My question is, Can we use present progressive to give an instruction? for example , 'You are waiting outside the bank until the manager arrives. Then you' re speaking to him.... <Q> Instead, when we use the present continuous to give instructions, we do so only to give a very strong command or order--or a humorous parody of such. <S> (However, it is also possible, and more common, to issue strong commands or orders with the simple present.) <S> The logic with the present continuous goes something like: <S> It is so certain you will do this, (or since you have no choice but to do this) I am going to describe it as an arranged act of the future. <S> You are walking in there <S> and you are telling her that she's fired! <S> Is that clear? <S> We commonly use the present continuous to refer to future time, and we especially use what we can consider a special instance of the present continuous form-- be going + [full infinitive] --for this "strong command or order" purpose, with the logic being something like: I am so certain you will do this, that it is the arranged future. <S> You are going (to march) up those stairs immediately, young lady, and clean your room like I told you to do yesterday! <A> One can say "You are to be waiting outside the bank" to give an instruction, but not simply "are waiting". <S> You are not to be driving home in the snowstorm, do you understand? <A> That depends what you mean by "instructions". <S> When you tell someone what to do -- whether it's an order or friendly advice -- you use an "imperative sentence". <S> Imperative sentences use the simple present. <S> " <S> Run away!" or "Insert knob A into hole B. <S> " This is what we normally think of when we talk about "instructions". <S> But you can use the word "instructions" in a broader sense to mean describing what someone should or will do. <S> In this case you are not using imperative sentences, but ordinary declarative sentences. <S> In real life, people giving instructions often mix the imperatives, which actually tell the person what to do, with declaratives, where they explain something. <S> Usually such declaratives are in the future tense. <S> Like: "Turn left into the parking lot. <S> You will see a gate in front of you and a metal box with a button. <S> Press the button. <S> The gate will open." <S> Note the first and third sentences there are imperatives but the second and fourth are declaratives. <S> Sometimes people use present continuous in such cases. <S> " <S> Go through the third door. <S> You are standing in a big empty room. <S> The lights are flickering." <S> Etc. <S> I think this is relatively rare, but it's done. <A> The only scenario I can imagine where present progressive would be appropriate would be when the speaker is encouraging the listener to visualize the scene and mentally "act out" the instructions as they are given. <S> Even then, I would expect that only the first instruction would be presented this way. <S> Example: <S> "Imagine your workplace. <S> You are standing outside your office door. <S> Turn right, then walk down the hallway past three doors on your left." <S> Even this is kind of a cheat, since the sentence with present progressive tense is not giving an instruction. <S> It's just establishing the precondition for the following instructions. <A> There are a couple of examples I can think of where the present progressive is very effectively an instruction: <S> The instruction "Go to London", which is also voiced like an order. <S> If your job involved travel your boss may say "You are going to London today". <S> That is not an order <S> but I think this is clearly still an instruction. <S> The instruction "Eat your greens" which, again, is also voiced like an order. <S> A parent, familiar with the behaviour of a fussy child could easily be heard to say "You are eating your greens today young man". <S> In this context it is an instruction and also perhaps a disguised order.
| It is possible to use the present progressive (present continuous) tense to give instructions, but not in the ordinary sense.
|
the most or mostly Between the following two sentences which one, if any, is correct and idiomatic? All of these options are/sound/look interesting to me, however among the choices I prefer the most to do X. All of these options are/sound/look interesting to me, however among the choices I prefer mostly to do X. <Q> As you are asking for idiomatic: Just stick with "prefer". <S> This already states what you want to do most. <S> Skip the "however" as it indicates a contradiction. <S> All of these options sound interesting to me, among the choices I prefer to do X. <S> You could also drop the "to me", as it's clearly you making the statement and "among the choices" is implied unless X is not in the original set of options. <S> Your sentence then can be reduced to: <S> All of these options sound interesting, I prefer to do X. <S> However, if X is not in the original set of options, the "however" remains to indicate that you will do something different. <S> All of these options sound interesting, however, I prefer to do X. <S> If you really, really want to use "most", it goes to the end: <S> All of these options sound interesting, among the choices I prefer to do X the most. <A> In US English, there's really no good idiom but a casual way of expressing that in speech might be, For activities: <S> They all sound good, but I'd rather X. <S> For things: They all look good, but I like that one -or- <S> X <A> "mostly" means mainly, generally or in most cases as in We're mostly out on Sundays. <S> OALD <S> As an adverb after a verb meaning to the highest degree or in the first place of your favour you can use "the most" or "most" as in <S> What did you enjoy the most/most. <S> OALD <S> OALD's comment: "the" is often left out in informal English. <A> I'd first change the structure of the sentence to: <S> All of these look/sound/are interesting, however, I prefer to do X the most. <S> All of these look/sound/are interesting, however, I mostly prefer to do X. <S> Idiomatically, the second sentence would be more commonly used, nevertheless the first one is also used commonly, albeit less frequently than the first one. <S> There are other statements which would be much more common, such as: <S> All of these look/sound/are good, but I'd rather do X. <S> casual All of these look/sound/are good, but I prefer doing X. formal
| Now if you look at these sentences, both are correct and could be used interchangeably.
|
What do we call 'ketchup', 'cheesy dip' , 'oregano' and things like that collectively, as they aren't side dishes? With most of the Indian dishes, we are served with something other than side dishes i.e. salads. Since most of the users here come from different countries, I come up with stuff that is internationally known. So, for instance, if we have a pizza, what do we call oregano, ketchup, chilli flakes, cheesy dip collectively ? I don't agree that they are the side dishes. That's because side dishes are actually dishes (you can certainly order 'salads'). But here, you cannot separately order ketchup, cheese dip and the like. Are they fillers? I'm not sure. If there's no one single word, a close one would do. <Q> <A> In US English: On pizza (before it's baked), you put toppings. <S> On a sandwich, you put condiments. <S> On a plate, you put sauce. <S> In a bowl (for dipping) is a dip. <S> Something shaken over is a seasoning. <S> There is no one word to refer to these collectively. <S> If you order Papa John's and they forget anything, one would ask "Where's all the stuff that comes with it?" <A> You add tomato sauce on a pizza before you bake it, then when it's almost cooked you can add the chopped mozzarella cheese and pop it back in the oven in order for the cheese to melt. <S> I tend to add the fresh basil leaves when the pizza has finished baking :) <S> The tomato base of a pizza is the sauce . <S> The cheese on the pizza is the topping . <S> The basil and oregano are fresh/dried herbs . <S> The salt and pepper are the seasoning . <S> Mayonnaise, mustard and seasoning are sometimes referred to collectively as condiments Oil and vinegar is called the dressing Guacamole (made from avocados) is a typical dip Turmeric, paprika, chilli powder, black pepper etc. <S> are spices . <S> None of the above can be described as a side-dish. <S> They are ingredients which enhance the flavour of dishes. <A> Crudely : "fixins". <S> As in "..with all the fixins." <S> Condiments, we call them condiments. <S> Oregano is a generally a garnish. <S> This is even if they are spread, or poured, or dipped into. <S> They will be savoury. <S> They will be fluid, and sometimes chunky. <S> (Chutneys, salsa, and grain mustard can be quite chunky). <S> We might include (or not) : <S> Sweet preparations such as Honey or Golden Syrup <S> Gravy (for hot chips or fries), gravy is generally served on the plate ? <S> Jus, reductions, oyster sauce, soy sauce. <S> Mayonaise, Tartare Sauce, Thousand Island, and Balsamic are sometimes "dressings". <A> "Condiments" is the closest word but you could also use "cruet", especially if there is a charge. " <S> Cruet extra" was a running joke about boarding houses in the UK <S> but apparently it did happen: 'And <S> the cruet came extra...' (Yorkshire Post).
| "Condiments" is probably the closest word to describing all of them. Being more specific, ketchup is a sauce, cheesy dip is a sauce or a dip and oregano and chilli flakes might be described as seasonings (or just as herbs and spices).
|
Is it possible to say 'to fall against a wall'? I have come across the following sentence in New Round-Up 3 2010 Pearson Education Limited: Well, he was riding his bike to school when a cat jumped out in front of him. He tried to stop but he fell against a wall. Such usage of the verb 'fell' in the above phrase struck me as unusual to say the least. Is it grammatically correct? How common is such like usage in everyday life? <Q> If we understand the statement to mean that he toppled over on his bike against the wall, then it is OK, I think. <S> There is also the possibility that 'fall against' may be used in ways that are unfamiliar to me. <S> She accidentally fell against the stage curtain while pretending to be tipsy. <S> The car struck the streetlamp and the streetlamp fell against the shop window. <A> Google "tree falls against a house" and look at the images to see something of idea of how something "falls against" something. <S> There is a difference between how a tree, or person, usually falls and how a rock dropped from my hand would fall. <S> The latter will fall straight down, and it would be a bit wierd to say it "fell against" something. <S> However a tree tends to fall over sideways (as indeed it is already on the ground at the base, it is only the tall trunk that needs to fall) and <S> if in doing so it runs into something like a house. <S> I choose a tree as a stark example, but people similarly often fall over somewhat sideways and may well fall "against" something. <A> By definition fall as an intransitive verb requires a downward motion. <S> So if a statement meets this requirement and a definition of against , then the usage should be OK. <S> In the example: He tried to stop but he fell against a wall. <S> if he just did not stop and ran into the wall, it does not seem to be a correct usage. <S> But if he tried to stop and the fell over against the wall, then the usage should be OK. <S> Having said that, as a general statement I think in normal usage against relates to a horizontal action, while fell relates to a vertical action. <S> As such they do not go well together.
| To 'fall against' something, in my experience as a speaker of American English, means to stumble or topple or lean into it , not to crash headlong into it when moving with velocity on a bike or in a vehicle, say.
|
When speaking of potential danger, is "potential source of risk" redundant? Consider these two sentences: Some people believe that robots are a potential risk to humans. Some people believe that robots are a potential source of risk to humans. Are they both grammatically correct? Do they mean the same thing? Is one better than the other for some reason? (I'm really unsure about it, so if there is another way to express it, please let me know) <Q> Grammatically both are correct <S> In terms of meaning, they are equivalent in the sentences you gave as examples: because the "risk" is unspecified and is assumed to be directly related to the robot. <S> If robots exist, there will be increased risk [of some unspecified problems] <S> Compare that to a more detailed sentence which specifies the nature of the risk, and you can start to see where the usage separates. <S> Robots are a potential risk [of someone falling over a robot that someone else left lying around] <S> Renegade Robots are a potential source of risk [of a robot uprising against their human overlords] <S> In the latter, it is the potential actions of robots which cause the danger, or something which changes as a result of their existence. <S> They are the source of the risk, but are not by definition the risk themselves: the risk is that something will happen and robots will rise up against us, not that robots will automatically be a risk. <S> In many cases, it does both: an Oil tanker is a potential collision hazard, and a potential source of an oil spill, hence we could use either sentence about an oil tanker. <A> Both are grammatically correct. <S> Which you use, depends on your interpretation of the issue - to some extent. <S> Robots can be a risk, that risk wouldn't exist without them, so it does come from them as a source. <S> (Although equally they can do dangerous work & remove risk from humans, I'm not agreeing with the comment!) <S> This is then moving into subtleties of the language, slanting meanings whilst saying the same thing - not as simple as right/wrong, when we start to differentiate the two. <A> Some people believe that robots are a potential risk/potential source of risk to humans. <S> The "source" also means something that causes a problem. <S> Please refer to Oxford Learners Dictionary.
| In the former the robots are the risk, they are increasing the risk by their existence, not their actions: the risk is that someone will come to harm due to a robot. Basically, compare whether the subject is the risk, or whether the subject causes the risk, directly or indirectly. It's grammatically correct and convey the same meaning whether you say "a potential risk" or "a potential source of risk".
|
why does "square one" not take an article? Consider the next idiom: Go back to square one For me, as a non-native speaker, putting the in front of square one sounds equally good as not putting it at all. But, when I speak with native speakers, for them saying the before square one sounds as a broken English. On the other hand, if I take an another example: There are a few problems. The first one is ... My question is, what is the difference? Why in the case of idiom the should not be said, but in the second case it has to be said? <Q> As a place name, 'square one' would not take an article. <S> Go back to square one. <S> I'm on square one of my journey. <S> However, Go back to the square one. <S> ... <S> is perfectly fine depending on the context and inflection. <S> By emphasizing 'square', you are saying go the square version of some thing, as opposed to the round one. <S> Your finger is on the round button, go back to the square one. <A> The image this idiom evokes is a board game with a sequence of 'squares' which players traverse. <S> In the context of a sequence or ordered list we ordinarily refer to individual numbered items by Item + Number , with no article, because it is a unique identifier—in effect, a "name": <S> We will deal with this in more detail in Section 3.4. <S> Illustration 17 shows the so-called 'Chandos Portrait'. <S> Now look at Line 13 and track across to Column C— <S> you'll see that the value has changed. <S> You have been bitten by an angry wombat and must return to base. <S> Go back to Square One. <S> In the case of the first [problem] is <S> you are not dealing with an ordered list but a random one: this is the problem you have elected to take up first. <A> If there is only one square, it is quite natural to say "the square". <S> If there are a number of ordered squares, it is quite natural to say "square one", "square two", "square three" and so on. <S> It would also be natural to say "the first square", "the second square", "the third square", and so forth. <S> The ordinal numbers (first, second, third) are ordinary adjectives. <S> They don't count as determiners. <S> When the series of squares is definite, "the first square" makes sense. <S> When the series of squares is indefinite, "a first square" makes sense. <S> The cardinal numbers (one, two, three) behave a bit differently. <S> When they appear after a singular noun that they modify, they do count as determiners. <S> This usage only makes sense when the series is definite. <S> Phrases like "square one", "chapter one" or "job one" don't need the definite article. <S> The trailing number is definite enough. <S> Cardinal numbers can also appear as weak determiners before a noun. <S> In this case (and with a single obvious exception) they modify plural nouns: "one square", "two squares", "three squares", etc. <S> I call these determiners weak because they don't prevent the use of the definite article. <S> "The one square" can still sound natural. <S> "A one square", however, sounds completely wrong. <S> The structure of "the first one" is much like the structure of "the first square". <S> Here, the "one" is a pronoun modified by the adjective "first". <S> The series continues "the second one", "the third one" and so on. <S> The same structure exists when "square" is an adjective. <S> In that case, "the square one", "the round one", "the thin one", "the tall one" and the like all sound perfectly natural. <S> Those are simply ordinary adjectives modifying an ordinary pronoun. <S> That's the same role that the definite or indefinite article can fill, so no article is required. <S> In the phrase "the square one", "one" is a pronoun. <S> "Square" is a modifier <S> but it's not a determiner. <S> The determiner role is filled by the definite article. <S> None of this has anything to do with the fact that "square one" is an idiom for "the beginning", or that it is almost always paired with the word "back".
| In the phrase "square one", the "one" is a modifier, specifically a determiner.
|
Go across the street Vs Cross the street If you need to get into the pharmacy... ...go across the street, you will get into the pharmacy located there. vs: ...cross the street, you will get into the pharmacy located there. <Q> Cross the street focuses more on the part about walking across the street, things like watching out for incoming traffic. <S> The part about watching out for cars is implied. <A> You can use say "cross the street" or "go across the street" to get to the pharmacy, without a difference in meaning. <S> The only difference is that the word "cross" had been used as a transitive verb in the first sentence and the word across has been used as a preposition in the second sentence. <A> Cross the street - the act of walking to the other sideAcross the street - the destination or location <S> I must cross the street to meet Mark. <S> I met Mark at Tim Horton's which was across the street from his house.
| Go across the street focuses more on the fact that you must cross the street to get to there, but that the process of walking on the street isn't as important.
|
Difference between "the other" and "another" I have just imparted to you two pieces of advice. Whether you will eventually choose one over the other is a matter of personal choice, so good luck. (from a radio show) What is this "the other?" Isn't it supposed to be "another?" <Q> Suppose I show my son two slices of pie: <S> I might say: You can choose one or the other – I'll eat whichever one you don't want. <S> (I can say "the other" when there's only two choices; "the other" in that context means "the other choice – or, "the other piece of pie.") <S> Now let's assume there are more than two choices: <S> In this case, I might say: Would you like some cherry pie? <S> Or would you like to choose another? <S> (We use "another" when there is more than one alternative; it mean " an other alternative .") <S> Because the radio host mentioned two choices, you could choose one or the other. <A> No, it's not supposed to be "another". <S> They actually left out the word 'one'--it's understood by native speakers. <S> See below. <S> I have just imparted to you two pieces of advice. <S> Whether you will eventually choose one over the other [one] is a matter of personal choice, so good luck. <S> " <S> "A/an" are indefinite article; "the" is the definite article. <S> Let's look at your sentence again. <S> I have just imparted to you two pieces of advice. <S> Whether you will eventually choose one over the other [one] is a matter of personal choice, so good luck. <S> You and the speaker both know what that advice is, so both of you can think of the advice as defined . <S> We usually use indefinite articles (a/an) before introducing/talking about a subject and then use definite articles (the) once the subject has been introduced. <S> In your example, the advice has been given and discussed, so the speaker is using the definite article 'the' to refer to the advice he gave. <S> Now let's replace "the other [one]" with "another": <S> I have just imparted to you two pieces of advice. <S> Whether you will eventually choose one over another is a matter of personal choice, so good luck. <S> The meaning has changed. <S> Now you might choose my advice or you might choose the advice someone else gave you--advice I don't know about or don't know what is. <S> You have another piece of advice that is undefined to the speaker. <A> The answer is right there in the word: "the other" vs. " an other". <S> The "the" refers to a specific other object, while "an" refers to an unspecified other, which may or may not be there, may or may not be one of a group of these other things. <A> In your context I think both options would go: <S> chose one over the other expresses a specific alternative , while chose one over another expresses a different alternative.
| Another" is the contracted form of "an other". Here, "choose one over the other [one]" refers to the two pieces of advice the speaker gave you.
|
explanation of the term "the very" 1.He is the very image of sophistication( he has all the qualities of sophistication)( extracted from the inside reading book 3) 2.This is the very much the story of a story I am wondering if the concept or meaning of the bold parts are the same. Any help would be appreciated <Q> How you put the definition in your first sentence is a good way to describe the meaning of <S> the very X : <S> X is the very Y <S> means X has all the qualities of Y. <S> So, applying this to your second statement (which would make more sense if it was written <S> This is much the very story of a story ): <S> This has (much) <S> all the qualities of a "story of a story" which makes sense to me and is how I'd interpret it. <S> It sounds like this sentence is commenting on a story, and <S> saying it is basically a "story of a story." <A> No. <S> These sentences use two different senses of the word very . <S> He is the very image of sophistication. <S> This sentence uses an older sense of the word very . <S> It means true or definitive . <S> He is the true image of sophistication. <S> This makes sense because there is nothing more definite than the definitive. <S> This special sense of true always modifies a noun. <S> This is very much the story of a story. <S> This sentence uses the common sense of the word very . <S> Here, the word very intensifies the word much . <S> It does not make sense to substitute "true" or "definitive" in this sentence: <S> This is true much the story of a story. <S> This is definitive much the story of a story. <S> True modifies the word image in the first sentence. <S> Image is a noun. <S> In the second sentence, very modifies much . <S> The word <S> much is not a noun. <S> This works because the common sense of very does not modify nouns. <S> When the common sense is used, it is not always combined with the definitive article, and the article is not always placed before the word very . <S> For example: This is very much a story about stories. <A> "Very" is an intensifier. <S> Normally it is used as an adverb modifying an adjective or another adverb. <S> "Bob is very tall. <S> " Not only is Bob tall, but we want to emphasize how tall he is. <S> "Sally drives very recklessly. <S> " Not only does she drive recklessly, but we want to emphasize how reckless. <S> There is a relatively rare usage where "very" modifies a noun, like your example. <S> In this case it means the extreme or most stereotypical version of that thing. <S> For example, "I am the very model of a modern major-general." <S> Not only is the speaker claiming to be a model of just what a major-general should be, but he's "the very model", the most perfect example one could imagine. <S> Or in your first example, not only is he sophisticated, but he is the "image of sophistication", the very idea that comes to your mind when you hear the word "sophistication". <S> And more than that, he's "the very image", the most stereotypical or classical example. <S> Usually, I think, when "very" is used with a noun, the noun is a word indicating a class or stereotype. <S> We say, "the very model of a major-general", not "the very major-general"; or "the very image of sophistication", not "the very sophistication". <S> "Very" can also be used as an adjective to emphasize that you mean that one specific thing. <S> Like, "That rope was the very thing we needed to escape." <S> Any old thing would not have done, we needed one specific thing, namely, that rope. <S> Or, "This is the very town where I was born. <S> " <S> This means pretty much the same thing as "This is the town where I was born", but I am emphasizing that it was this town and not some other town. <S> Your second example is awkwardly worded. <S> I'm not sure if you were quoting someone or trying to create your own sentence from examples you've seen. <S> A better wording would be, "This is the very idea of a story of a story" or "This is the very model ..." etc. <S> You could also say, "This is very much the story of a story", but then that's a different usage, then you're using the more conventional form of "very" as an adverb modifying the adjective "much", rather than modifying a noun.
| This sense of very is always used with the definite article. In short, you're looking at two different meanings for the word very , and each meaning has its own grammar. His image defines sophistication, or he defines the image of sophistication.
|
Where did you found it - should I use "did" in the question? Where you found it. Where did you found it. In the question should I put "did"? <Q> Where did you find it? <S> Note that after do you should use the bare form of the verb: find , not found . <S> The verb do carries the Past Tense, being transformed into did , so there's no need for find to carry the Past Tense too. <S> The two verbs work together, after all. <S> If you put this question into the Present Perfect, for example, you would need to use have : <S> Where have <S> you found it? <S> Both do and have <S> are "auxiliary verbs" . <S> If you have a statement <S> I have found it! <S> (Present Perfect) <S> .. <S> and you want to transform it into a question, then you have your auxiliary verb <S> ready <S> : it's have : <S> Where have <S> you found it? <S> But if you have a statement I found it! <S> (Past Simple) <S> There's no auxiliary verb in it. <S> But to pose a question you need an auxiliary verb ! <S> What to do? <S> You have to use do . <S> This is called " do-support ": <S> Where did <S> you find it? <S> So it all depends on whether there's an auxiliary verb of some kind in the statement you want to transform into a question. <S> If there's no such verb, use do . <S> But there's an exception: in some questions, there's no need for an auxiliary verb: <S> Who found it? <S> How many people found it? <S> It's because <S> the pronoun who serves as the subject of sentence 1, and the question words "how many" in sentence 2 refer to the subject of that sentence, which is people . <S> P.S. <S> The clause <S> Where you found it. <S> Will not work as a question. <S> It might be included into some sentence, like this: Remember that golden coin? <S> I visited the place where you found it , and found another. <A> Where will you find it?Where <S> did you find it?Where <S> have you found it?You can't have where you found it on it's own ; it would mean the place where you found it <A> Use, " <S> Where did you find it?" or "where have you found it?" <S> Eg: " <S> Where you found it" Put the jacket back where you found it.
| Yes, in such questions you should use the verb do . "Where you found it" refers to the place where you actually found it.
|
Can we use "at the cost of" to express equality of the prices? I want to say you can buy, for example, three e-books buy exactly the same amount of money which you have to pay to buy a single paper book; Is it correct to say it like this? You can buy, for example, three e-books at the cost of a single paper book? If yes, is it idiomatic or there are better ways to express it? <Q> I would say that it's not correct. " <S> At the cost of" normally indicates what one loses . <S> (In your sentence, you don't lose the physical book by buying the e-books; you just lose some money that could instead have been used to buy a physical book.) <S> And what's more, "at the cost of" is usually figurative, rather than denoting an actual purchase or exchange; for example, "He achieved his goal, but at the cost of his health" means that his health suffered as a result of his pursuit of his goal. <S> Instead, you can either say "for the price of" or (as skullpatrol suggests) you can use the word same : "for the same price as", "for the same cost as", "at the same cost as", etc. <S> (Personally, I still find price preferable, but cost is quite correct.) <S> (The preposition at can also be used with price , but in this case it would make it sound like there is a specific price for a set of three e-books. <S> To use at with price , you would need to rework the sentence a bit: "You can buy an e-book at [ or for] one-third the price of a paper book.") <A> but your wording does make sense. <A> You can buy, for example, three e-books at the cost of a single paper book. <S> means " <S> If you have a single paper book, you can trade it for three e-books." <S> The following sentence means what you intended: You can buy, for example, three e-books for the cost of a single paper book.
| I would say you can buy three e-books for the same price as one paper book
|
"I did a few mistakes" vs "I made a few mistakes" What is the difference between: "I did a few mistakes." and, "I made a few mistakes." Are they the same or not? My question is about the collocation: Can I use "made" for the word 'mistake' or not? <Q> Do and make in this context <S> are both light verbs † . <S> Which verb works is somewhat arbitrary; you'll simply have to memorize which light verb goes with which noun, one by one: <S> give a hug <S> make a mistake <S> take a nap <S> do a review have a swim <S> The correct light verb for mistake is make , and your phrase made a few mistakes is perfectly fine. <S> In contrast, do is the wrong light verb, so your phrase <S> *did a few mistakes <S> is ungrammatical. <S> † <S> For more information about light verbs, see Huddleston & Pullum's Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002), p.290. <A> In the process, you "are mistaken", are "making a mistake"; you can be about to make one, but when it's* done & in the past, it's been made. <S> * <S> it's = making a mistake. <S> I put the ramble in to illustrate a little. <A> "I made a mistake." (correct English)- <S> We never do mistakes but we make mistakes. <S> So "I did a mistake. <S> "(Absolutely <S> Wrong English)
| It should always be made - you don't do mistakes.
|
till then vs until then Mohan said that he had been in London for two months but until then/till then he had not time to visit the water. Is there any difference between until then and till then ? <Q> To add to Farooq's answer I'd say that till is slightly less formal than until . <S> In a formal announcement, until will be used more often: Appeals are registered until 5 p.m. <A> They both mean the same thing. <S> You have a choice between "until then" and "till then". <S> For example, Goodbye until then or Goodbye till then <S> "Until then" is more common though. <A> You can use either until then or till then in the said sentence. <A> It's a common misconception that "till" (or "til") is an informal, shortened version of "until." <S> Actually, till came first (check a reliable dictionary). <S> If you want to avoid pedantic know-it-alls who don't actually know it all, it's safest to use "until," but there's nothing wrong with "til."
| "Till" is more common in conversation. There is no difference between "until" and "till".
|
How do you read these mathematical expressions aloud? (both above are from Wikipedia.org ) <Q> Here's how I'd say the first one: <S> The absolute value of S minus the sum from 1 to n of f of t sub <S> i times delta sub <S> i is less than epsilon. <S> Key: (1) The absolute value of (2) <S> S minus (3) the sum from 1 to n of (4) f of t sub i (5) times delta sub <S> i (6) is less than epsilon <S> Note <S> : Some mathematical expressions can be read aloud in more than one way. <S> For example, someone might say: sigma instead of the sum of the function instead of f of delta <S> i instead of delta sub <S> i t sub <S> i delta <S> sub <S> i instead of t sub <S> i times <S> delta sub <S> i <A> The absolute value of the difference between S and the sum from i equals one through <S> i equals n of <S> the function f evaluated at t sub <S> i times the width of each <S> i is less than epsilon. <S> If it is clear that i and n are one-indexed, then "the sum from i equals one through i equals n" can be replaced by "the sum of the first n terms". <S> "The width of each i" is an interpretation of "delta i". <S> The function is one divided by the quantity <S> x plus one close quantity, all divided by the square root of x. <S> The integral from zero to infinity of the function d <S> x equals the limit as s goes to zero of the integral from s to 1 of the function d <S> x plus the limit as t goes to infinity of the integral from 1 to t of the function d x. "Goes to" can be replaced by "goes toward", or (as Damkeng suggests) "tends to", or (as J.R. suggests) "approaches". <S> I often use a notation like "integral from x equals a to x equals b" instead of "integral from a to b". <S> I also often say "to positive infinity" instead of "to infinity". <S> I "factored out" the definition of the function in the first sentence. <S> If the function were easy to say (such as "x squared"), I would not "factor out" the definition of the function. <S> Instead, I would include the "x squared" in the statements of the integrals, a la <S> Damkeng's answer. <A> Absolute value of s minus sum <S> i equals one to n, of f of t <S> i times delta i, is less than epsilon. <S> Integral from zero to infinity of dx by x plus one times square root of x is equal to the limit of integral from s to one of dx by x plus one times square root of x as s tends to zero plus the limit of integral from one to t of dx by x plus one times square root of x as t tends to infinity. <S> Please note that this is a casual reading. <S> It's practically impossible to avoid ambiguity when reading mathematical expressions aloud. <S> We might try to add more words such as "left parenthesis", "right parenthesis", and so on, but that wouldn't help much. <S> There are several possible alternatives, but this is how I normally read them. <A> Although not a direct answer to your question, here are a few references on how to read mathematical symbols and expressions. <S> As a non-native English speaker who has to read mathematical formulae, I've found them pretty useful. <S> Handbook for Spoken Mathematics , Research and Development Institute, Inc: <S> This is probably the most complete reference. <S> Not of easy consultation, though. <S> H. Valiaho, Pronunciation of mathematical expressions (pdf): <S> A short list divided by topic (e.g. Logic, Sets, Functions etc.). <S> Reports also variants. <S> K. Kromarek, Mathematics Pronunciation Guide : <S> This is a guide on how to pronounce mathematical symbols and names, but not on how to read expressions. <A> The simple answer is "you don't". <S> Complex mathematical expressions like those become ambiguous when read out loud because you lose a lot of the structure. <S> If you ever need to communicate the expression exactly, you'd write it down and point to it. <S> The only exception I can think of is if you were dictating something over the telephone, for example because you were working on a paper with somebody and you were trying to point out a mistake. <S> Then, you'd read out literally every symbol. <S> (Or just the part with the mistake, e.g., "The sum should be from i equals 0 to n minus 1, not 1 to n.") <A> As a mathematician, a physicist and a uni lecturer, I would read the two expressions above as follows: (1) <S> the absolute value of S minus <S> the sum of "f at t sub i" times "delta sub i", where i changes from 1 to n, is less than epsilon. <S> (2) the x integral from zero to infinity of the function "1 over '( <S> x plus 1) times (square root of x)' " is equal to the limit of x integral from s to 1 of the function as s tends to zero, plus the limit of x integral from 1 to t of the function as t tends to infinity. <S> Note that clarity and simplicity in statements are important in teaching.
| At a class, you point to the relevant positions of the expressions while you read them.
|
“I saw a dog” vs. “I have seen a dog” I saw a dog. I have seen a dog. What are the differences between them? Did these events happen on the same day? <Q> Sometimes we would use the first (simple past) when the consequences or result of the act of seeing are not particularly relevant to a current situation, and the second (present perfect) when such a connection is in operation. <S> There are many other factors, some very nuanced and subtle, which may determine if we must or would tend to use one over the other. <S> As with English grammar generally, the simple, more basic rules are worth learning, but we will best learn to make the correct choices more and more often by immersing ourselves in the language rather than trying to memorize myriad complex rules, and then retreive and use them while producing language--an impossible and endlessly frustrating undertaking. <A> In the past I saw a dog. <S> Now I have seen a dog. <S> The difference is the time period you are talking about. <S> The Simple Past saw is used to talk about past events while the Present Perfect have seen is used to talk about things that are true now, in the present. <S> They are semantically different but logically equivalent. <S> The past could be earlier today or further back. <S> It could be the same dog and occasion you are talking about in both sentences or it could be two different dogs, or even the same dog on different occasions. <S> I just saw a black dog <S> but I have seen a white dog before. <A> I saw a dog. <S> I have seen a dog. <S> Both talk about the past event <S> but , the former one is more about a one-off event <S> whereas the second talks about the event whose impact still lies. <S> A very subtle difference if you could see. <S> I saw a dog - one time event in the past -today, yesterday... <S> does not matter <S> But in the context of have seen , you need to have the effect to be continued at least till the time you speak the sentence <S> I have seen a dog with two tails -day does not matter. <S> The thing could be usual or unusual but the effect still remains. <S> Though I live in India, I'm lucky to have seen penguins! <S> Here, I won't use saw <S> because though it was a one-time event, the effect still remains... <S> I have seen penguins. <S> They were in Toronto Zoo. <S> The moment I shift from have seen to saw , it becomes a one time event and the impact may lack. <S> I saw penguins in Toronto Zoo <S> ~ <S> Okay, what next? <S> This is the reason, we often use <S> have you seen when we want to keep the effects intact over <S> did you see being a one-time event in such context . <S> Not sticking to strict grammar rules, if you ponder over this topic you'll find that whenever we use have seen/done or whatever <S> the effect will remain till you speak that. <S> The flair of suspense, surprise, information or the like still remains over the use of saw/did etc. <A> I'm glad I finally managed to understand the use of saw and seen: <S> saw = <S> used when talking about the moment of speaking seen= used when talking about something that happened in the past <S> but the affirmation is being said in the present <S> I saw a cat (at the moment of speaking)I have seen a cat (affirmation said at the moment of speaking with the action of seeing the cat being on the past) <A> I saw a dog <S> In a specific time in the past, you saw a dog, and that is all you are saying unless previous/upcoming sentences reveal more. <S> Example: <S> I saw a dog by that tree yesterday. <S> I have seen a dog. <S> On a regular, continual, or multiple basis in the past, you saw a dog, strongly implying more than once. <S> You may see him again under the same circumstances. <S> Example: <S> Over the past couple weeks I have seen a dog walking around. <S> Example: <S> I have seen a dog get into your trash. <S> - You might say this in response to seeing someone's trash on the ground, if you saw a dog do that before, and strongly suspect the dog did it this time.
| Since you saw a dog in the past it must be true that you have (ever) seen a dog now. Sometimes they can mean the same thing, especially in US varieties of English.
|
He travels (the) fastest who travels alone Some people write, "He travels fastest who travels alone." Other people write, "He travels the fastest who travels alone." Which one do you think is correct? The definite article ' the ' is supposed to be necessary in this sentence or not? Sorry for this silly question and thank you for reading. <Q> In everday usage, it is a somewhat subjective choice as to which is preferable. <S> If you were to argue about which should be the canonical version of a proverb, then many would agree with the maxim "brevity is the soul of wit" and plump for the first option. <A> I don't see any difference between "the fastest" and "fastest" as adverb after a verb. <S> I see it as a simple shortening as without "the" the meaning is still clearly understood. <S> And when a shortened form has come into use it is used. <S> Edit: I suppose "He travels the fastest" is historically the older structure and "the" is not the normal nominative case as in "the man" but a remainder of an old fifth case form which became identical to the nominative form. <S> We have traces of this form in "the sooner the better" where "the" has nothing to do with the normal nominative/accusative form of the article. <S> Later the adverbial superlative "the fastest" simply was shortened to "to travel fastest". <S> Perhaps it is possible to find some facts which can harden this supposition of mine. <A> The meaning is slightly different. <S> "The fastest" emphasizes the comparison more. <S> Try a sentence more like this and its easier to see There were five competitors but he was the fastest (competitor - understood ).
| Both options are perfectly correct: the former emphasizes 'fastest' in comparative terms, the latter in absolute terms.
|
Three prepositional phrases one after the other: is it harder to understand? This text was written by coffee1054 in this question : The simplest case how the superconductivity appear it is fall to zero of the resistance of conductor at low temperature. Which is the better way to rewrite the sentence above, to make it clearer? Superconductivity occurs when the resistance of a conductor at low temperature has fallen to zero. or The falling to zero of the resistance of a conductor at low temperature gives rise to superconductivity. In the latter sentence, do the three prepositional phrases in a row make it harder to understand? <Q> No. <S> Because each of the prepositional phrases is short, and because they refer to each other sequentially, they are not confusing. <S> Consider this sentence: <S> The treasure is buried in a chest in the middle of the river. <S> This is pretty much the same construction. <S> When you read, you first think of the treasure, then the chest, then the middle of the river--the sentence flows naturally. <S> I still prefer your first option--actually, I would say "... <S> falls to zero" instead of "...has fallen to zero. <S> " But that's not because of the prepositional phrases, it's because the pseudo-passive gerund construction "the falling to zero" is awkward. <S> My suggestion would be: <A> The original sentence is poorly written. <S> It could be rewritten many ways, but I would go with: <S> At low temperatures, the falling to zero of the resistance of a conductor gives rise to superconductivity. <S> or At low temperatures, the falling to zero of a conductor's resistance gives rise to superconductivity. <S> Since low temperatures lead to the reduced resistance, I think it is better to write it this way. <A> The other answers are correct, but no matter how the sentence is phrased (by their suggestions or even your own proposed phrasing), they leave out an important part of the badly-worded example; namely, that this is only one of the conditions (the simplest case) under which superconductivity can occur. <S> So I would prefix this to any revision (or incorporate it somehow): <S> "In the simplest case,.. "
| When low temperature causes the resistance of a material to fall to zero, it becomes a superconductor.
|
passed both -- meaning? Source: US Congress passes Russia sanctions, arms for Ukraine Usage example with a context: Identical texts of the Ukraine Freedom Support Act passed both the Senate and House of Representatives on Thursday, but because of a technical issue it returned to the Senate where it passed by unanimous consent moments before the chamber adjourned late Saturday night. How should I understand passed in this context? Does this mean that the Act went through those two legislative institutions for approval, but was sent back to where it came from? In the second instance, I don't understand how it's possible that we have the word by and the verb passed is in the passive voice, but there's no axillary verb like is around. <Q> Passed in this context is synonymous with was approved by in the first instance; and in the second instance was approved ( <S> owing to the different grammatical ordering of subject and object 'by' becomes redundant in terms of demarcating which noun is the subject of the sentence), you should be able to parse it correctly yourself, but in short: Yes, it was initially approved by both legislatures, but was required to be resubmitted to the Senate again (owing to a 'technical issue'), this time it was approved unanimously. <S> The 'by' after the second 'passed' refers to the manner (unanimous) of it's passing, not the instrument (the Senate). <A> I don't understand how it's possible that we have the word by and the verb passed <S> is in the passive voice, but there's no axillary verb like is around. <S> The verb passed is used in the active voice in your excerpt. <S> A draft piece of legislation can indeed be passed by a legislative body. <S> But it can pass a legislative body too, in the active-voice sense, meaning largely the same: an adoption by the majority of the voters. <S> Imagine <S> a bill passing "the gates", say, after which it's no longer a bill but a law. <S> That's why there's no verb "to be" that is usually employed to create Passive Voice: .. <S> Act passed both the Senate and House .. <S> it returned to the Senate where it passed by unanimous consent .. <S> The draft Act ("it") returned to the Senate. <S> In the Senat, it passed . <S> Come to think of it, it does look strange without a direct object: <S> The Act passed the Senate. <S> ("the Senate" as direct object) <S> The Act passed. <S> (no direct object) <S> But according to Macmillan Dictionary, the verb "to pass" can be used intransitively (without an object): pass (7) <S> [INTRANSITIVE/TRANSITIVE] if a law, proposal, etc. passes, or passes a particular law-making body, it becomes official as the result of a vote <S> If the bill passes , it will fundamentally affect people's employment rights. <S> It's the words "by unanimous consent" that are confusing a little. <S> They describe the manner in which the draft Act passed, but the (non-native) reader starts looking for the missing " was ". <S> Related articles at Wikipedia: <S> Ergative verb <S> Antiacusative verb <S> Causative alteration <A> Be careful. <S> In the first instance, it says the bill was "passed" (was approved). <S> In the second instance, it says the bill "passed by unanimous consent" In between the two, it says there was a technical error. <S> So the events happened like this. <S> 1. <S> The bill was passed (approved)2. <S> There was a technical error (the bill was not passed).3. <S> The bill was passed by unanimous consent (the bill was approved again)4. <S> Moments before the senate closed (phew!) <S> So yes, it passed. <S> There's no axillary very because the clauses are different. <S> It passed <S> , it was passed, it has been passed, all mean the same thing. <S> Either way, (by unanimous consent) is a separate clause that answers the question (How?) <S> and only modifies the stand alone clause <S> "it passed". <S> It's a compound sentence, because who wants to write this: The bill passed. <S> The bill passed by unanimous consent. <S> The bill passed moments before the Senate Closed. <S> See spot run :D <S> So we substitute "It" for "the bill" and create a compound sentence out of our three clauses, to end up with "It (the bill) passed by unanimous consent moments before the Senate closed." <S> Cool? <S> Awesome! <S> Can you say "was passed"... <S> you absolutely CAN. <S> You can say "the bill was passed by unanimous consent" if you want to. <S> But you don't HAVE to. <S> That said, as a native English speaker with a degree in English I had to read the sentence three or four times before I could figure out if the bill did, or did not, pass. <S> Therefore I can say with absolute certainty that the sentence you were given is awkward and does not convey the meaning it's trying to shape. <S> So in conclusion, you are absolutely right. <S> Interestingly, a lot of government writings "write around the point" this way so that you never know which meaning is correct. <S> For a full explanation of this writing style, read a book called "1984" (I'm being facetious of course).
| The sentence SHOULD read "the bill WAS passed".
|
Difference between "resident" and "inhabitant" "The town's inhabitants/ residents." Is there a difference when used in this kind of sense? <Q> I do not know whether "inhabitant" has a specific legal meaning. <S> Similarly, "residence", "domicile", "tenancy", "leasehold", and "occupancy" all have legal meanings. <A> As Jasper says, the term resident confers a notion of right (not necessarily a legal right, but that most easily fits), that inhabitant does not necessarily imply. <S> Both can be used in that phrase you supplied - but one may be preferable over the other -depending upon the actual subject, or topic, of discussion. <A> I looked up both on google and saw the usage of "residents of the town" is much more common than "inhabitants of the town" in this sense. <S> I think two word inhabitant sounds a little bit formal and maybe scientific sometimes. <S> And another difference between them in terms of usage is that, while the word inhabitant can be used for animals and humans, the word resident only can be used for humans. <S> Hope <S> this helps a bit
| "Resident", "citizen", "tenant", "occupant", "householder", and "subject" all have legal meanings. I think it would be more idiomatic if you write "residents of the town" and "inhabitants of the town".
|
How to state that something makes something unnecessary? I want to say that something makes something unnecessary. I mean you no longer need to do it. For example if students be allowed to eat in the class they won't need to leave the class so as to eat. I believe that there should be a verb to this aim. I've mentioned the following sentence to express my aim in more detail. Allowing the students to eat in the class .... them from leaving the class so as to eat." (How should I fill the blank?) I thought of some verbs but I'm pretty sure that they do not fit. [prevent, dismiss, free] As I searched further, I encountered the verb "rid", does it carry the meaning which I need? <Q> Chapka's suggestion of moot is a good one, because it doesn't carry any connotation that the speaker prefers either option (eating in the classroom, or leaving the classroom to eat), as OP mentioned in a comment. <S> As far as I can tell, the OP is asking for: [Action] <S> makes it so that [subject] can do <S> A or B <S> , with no clearly stated preference for either option rather than [Action] makes it so that [subject] is more likely to/must/will be inclined to select B over <S> A in the future <S> Moot does indeed accomplish this; however, since it does require restructuring the sentence a bit, I offer what first popped into my head when I read the sample sentence: <S> Allowing the students to eat in the class room prevents them from having to leave the class <S> [so as] to eat. <S> Note other minor changes <S> : classroom is the place they eat, not the class: you can either say in the classroom or in class (the state of being in class , not an actual physical location), but not in the class , in this case. <S> The "so as" is grammatically acceptable, but not really necessary; it just makes the sentence sound more formal. <S> Now, as for the actual word suggestion: prevents [noun] from having to . <S> All parts of the construction are required; prevents by itself means that they are no longer able to eat outside the classroom now that they can eat within it <S> (option <S> 2 above, which I believe you are not looking for). <S> To fall in line with option 1 , we add from having to , which gives the students free choice. <S> Before, students could only eat outside the classroom [perform action A] . <S> Now, students have free choice to eat either inside or outside of the classroom [perform action A] or [perform action B] . <S> Allowing them to choose either option prevents them from having to (alternately: makes it so they are no longer required to ) [perform action A] . <S> Of course, you do want at least some of the students to eat inside the classroom, or you would have no reason to propose this change in the first place. <S> But you now have a neutral way to express this, without letting your opinion be known. <A> The word that I have seen that most closely meets this usage is not a common one: "obviate." <S> However, because this word is not well known, it runs the risk of being confusing rather than actually helpfully communicating the idea. <A> The verb that comes closest to what you're asking about is to moot. <S> This is a somewhat archaic verb that can mean either to raise a point for discussion or to render irrelevant (yes, these meanings are more or less antonyms. <S> Sorry--English is like that.) <S> "Moot" can be used as a verb, but these days, it is more likely to be used as an adjective. <S> So you would rephrase your sentence to something like this: <S> The students can now eat in the classroom, so the debate about how to handle the trip to the cafeteria is moot. <S> As for a verb that will fit into the exact structure you propose...I don't think there is one. <S> If you want to use that sentence structure, you will need to use a phrase rather than a single word: Allowing the students to eat in the class relieves them from the necessity of having to leave the class to eat. <S> But this is a highly formal construction and would not be a native speaker's first choice. <S> The more idiomatic way of stating this would be something along these lines: If the students are allowed to eat in the classroom, they won't have to leave the class to eat. <S> The "if" construction is a more natural way of expressing the dependence relationship here than a verb or verb phrase. <A> According to The Free Dictionary, the verb "save" is also used to mean "to prevent the occurrence, use or necessity of". <S> Hence, the sentence may be formed as follows: <S> "Allowing the students to eat in the classroom will save their going out (leaving the class) to eat". <S> We can also say ".....will save them leaving the class to eat" as per J.R's comments. <A> A nice simple word here is keeps <S> Allowing the students to eat in the class keeps them from having to leave the classroom to eat." <S> From The Free Dictionary : <S> keep v. tr. <S> 11 c. <S> To prevent or deter: tried to keep the ice from melting. <A> Either frees or releases <S> are appropriate options in the context you've provided.
| I think the verb "save" is an appropriate word that can be used in the sentence presented above. Absolves is in the ballpark of what you're asking for, but in this case it's not quite right as it carries an overly strong sense of a responsibility or obligation that is no longer necessary, and we wouldn't describe the necessity of students leaving the room to eat their lunch in such strong terms (the reason I mention it is that it may be a superior option in a related but slightly different context).
|
'Out state' or 'non-state'? What do we refer to the people who don't belong to our state? In India, among college-goers, 'out-state' serves as an adjective! I think it's a poor use of that word. The youngsters, though informally, refer the people from different state as 'out-state'. Forgive him; he does not know the rituals. He's 'out-state'! It's a poor use of 'out state' words. Today, I read in the newspaper (Indian) The article 370 does not allow non-state subjects to purchase any immovable property in the state. This looked a bit standard but want to confirm by you all. What do you refer to a person who is from different state? 'Out-state person', 'Outlander' (but I think this is someone from different country) or non-state subject? Any better word/term for a person from different state (say -New York State) staying in different state (say -Alaska)? <Q> We sometimes use the term out-of-state when referring to something like the tuition rate, and non-resident when referring to the person: <S> She's a non-resident; she'll have to pay out-of-state tuition next year . <S> Here's how I'd say the second sentence in your question (U.S. English): <S> Article 370 does not allow out-of-state buyers to purchase any immovable property in the state. <S> or: Article 370 does not allow non-residents to purchase any immovable property in the state. <S> As for the first, that seems more informal; I'd simply say: Forgive him; he does not know the rituals. <S> He's not from around here ! <A> This seems like the kind of issue that may vary significantly between contexts - in particular those countries that are federations of 'states' such as the US, Australia or India. <S> From my Australian context I would proffer the following suggestions: <S> He's from interstate <S> (Preferred Australian usage. <S> Interstate can also be legitimately used as an adjective - interstate students etc.). <S> He's from out-of-state / out-state (Less common in Australia, but I believe more common in the US, which if I'm not wrong, tends to restrict use of 'Interstate' mostly to highways). <S> He's not a local (maybe not quite what you're after, but as far as I know, it works everywhere - sometimes simplest is best). <S> Non-state in the context you've given seems like quite a localized usage - in <S> it's wider usage, non-state is synonymous with non-governmental (eg. <S> non-state actors ) which is not what you're after. <A> I'd call him or her an out-of-stater . <S> "Dave is an out-of-stater from California." out–of–stat·er noun 1 :a visitor from another state 2 :a person whose legal domicile is in one state but who lives for an extended time in another state (as to attend college) <S> Reference: <S> http://i.word.com/idictionary/out-of-stater <A> The requested phrase can vary based on whether a country has states or not, so I'll give the British perspective. <S> We don't have a set phrase for this because it's not a concept that's very relevant to the UK. <S> Although the UK is divided into the countries of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, there are only four such divisions. <S> In contrast to, say, the USA, there's no concept of being a citizen of England, NI, Scotland or Wales: you're just a British citizen. <S> (In the recent Scottish independence referendum, eligibility to vote was determined entirely by residence over a certain period.) <S> If we wanted to refer to somebody who wasn't from a specific part of the UK, we'd say "non-English", "non-Northern-Irish", "non-Scottish" or "non-Welsh" or, to remove ambiguity about whether a Spaniard counts as "non-English" in a particular context, "British people not from/from outside England" etc. or "Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh people", etc. <S> It's rare to have to refer to the general concept of "a person from a different part of the UK" so we'd probably just say that. <S> If we wanted to talk about the situation in a different English-speaking country that did have states or some analogous divisions, we'd just use whatever words the people from that country use to talk about themselves. <A> People from other countries are "foreign", or we say "they are from |country/nation|". <S> Sometimes, when feeling extremely colloquial, we might say "That guys an outta-statah!".
| In Maine, United States, we refer to "out-of-staters" as either "flatlanders" or "from away".
|
When A was happening, B happened. OR A was happening when B happened? When I was talking with john, the telephone rang. I was talking with john, when the telephone rang. What is the difference between the above sentences? (Do they sound similar?) <Q> When I was talking with John, the telephone rang. <S> I was talking with John, when the telephone rang. <S> There is a lot of difference between these sentences which is as follows: <S> When has been used as a conjunction and conjunction clause is a subordinate clause, which is different in both sentences. <S> The "when" in the second sentence shows "a point in time", which means that at the time the telephone rang, I was talking with John. <S> We should omit the comma before "when" in the second sentence because if the subordinate clause with "when" comes after the main clause, we don't use a comma before "when". <A> Sentence #2 is more correct. <S> You are asking about the past continuous tense . <S> You have 2 past events. <S> A) <S> I was talking with John. <S> B) <S> The phone rang. <S> Event B (quick and short action) interrupts Event A (longer action). <S> If we want to make one sentence out of these two events, we can write it four different ways. <S> We can put 'when' in front of the quick action, like in your sentence above. <S> I was talking with John when the telephone rang. <S> no comma <S> When the phone rang, I was talking with John. <S> comma <S> Or we can put 'while' in front of the long action: The telephone range while I was talking with John. <S> no comma <S> While I was talking with John, the telephone rang. <S> comma <S> All four sentences mean pretty much the same thing. <S> There might be some minor differences, but without context, we can ignore it. <S> A note about commas: <S> If 'when' and 'while' are in the middle of the sentence, we don't need a comma. <S> We only need a comma when (ha!) <S> they are at the beginning of a past continuous sentence--possibly other places too, but we're focusing on these types of sentences here. <A> The sentences both express the idea that the two events "I was talking with John" and <S> "the phone rang" happened at the same time. <S> (Presumably, the phone wasn't ringing the whole time you were talking with John: that would be a very persistent caller!) <S> The difference is one of emphasis. <S> "When I was talking with John, the telephone rang" puts the emphasis on the conversation with John, with the phone as an interruption; "I was talking with John when the telephone rang" (without the comma) puts the emphasis on the phone ringing, with your conversation with John as, for example, a reason why you didn't answer it. <S> By the way, since "John" is a proper noun, it would normally be capitalized. <S> (Where "normally" means "always, <S> unless John has decided, for some reason, that he wants his name to be written with lower-case letters and, even then, a lot of people will ignore him.")
| The "when" in the first sentence means "during the time that", and the sentence means that the telephone rang during the time I was talking with John".
|
What does as mean here Canned baked beans are used as a convenience food. They may be eaten hot or cold straight from the can as they are fully cooked. What does as mean here? Does it simply means because ? ,to rephrase it; They may be eaten hot or cold straight from the can because they are already fully cooked. <Q> Basically, if you replace "as" with "because", the global meaning remains the same. <S> However, in my opinion "because" would be more relevant for a cause-effect relation. <S> Here, the fact that your beans are fully cooked is not a direct cause of the fact you can eat them hot or cold, it's rather a condition among other possible ones. <S> It's fully cooked, therefore you can eat them the way you want, but it could be for any other reason. <A> <A> It depends on the context. <S> AS could be used as an adverb, conjunction, and preposition. <S> It more preferable. <S> Your context, we could use words like Because Because is more common than as and since, both in writing and speaking. <S> When we use because we are focusing on the reason. <S> When We can use when to introduce a single completed event that takes place in the middle of a longer activity or event. <S> In these cases, we usually use a continuous verb in the main clause to describe the background event. <S> As We can use as to introduce two events happening at the same time. <S> After as , we can use a simple or continuous form of the verb. <S> The continuous form emphasises an action that interrupts or occurs during the progress of another action. <S> Cambridge dictionary
| The OP is right; "as" is also used for giving the reason for something (in the sense of "because").
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.